2006-10-27

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. member for Willowdale has five minutes left in his remarks.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking yesterday, I was talking about how cynical, how divisive, and how doctrinaire the government has been in bringing forth wedge issues that are not based on good public policy, but politics at its worst.
I talked about GST cuts at the expense of personal income taxes, which were actually raised. I talked about a baby bonus of only $100 a month instead of real child care spaces. I talked about cancellation of the historic Kelowna accord with our first nations. I talked about how the government has rejected the Kyoto protocol and not even given us any short term or medium term goals for climate change. Instead, it has given us transit passes which will not increase ridership, but will only help those who are already using public transit.
Let me go on. A fifth area where this cynical government has misled us in bad policy is our cities. It cancelled our programs for needed municipal infrastructure. Sixth, on agriculture, it wants to do away with the Wheat Board without even giving farmers a full voice. In terms of justice, it has a let us get tough on crime mantra, but without doing anything to the real causes of crime in our country.
The Conservatives talked about the fiscal imbalance. They ran on that program, and they were going to do something about it. We have not seen one word about what they will do about it. They ran on a program that would reduce wait times in our hospitals. It was one of their five major planks. What have we seen? Absolutely nothing. 
In terms of charter rights, they want to set this country back into the dark ages by ignoring the charter rights of those who are most vulnerable in our society. They want to revisit the very divisive wedge issue of the rights of people who are minorities in our society and have been accorded the right to marry by the Supreme Court of Canada. They are so cynical they will not even bring in the notwithstanding clause, which is the only way to undo what the court has said is a minority right in our country.
In terms of facing the great challenges of the new emerging economies of the world, what did the Conservatives do about China and India? They cancelled our $470 million, over five years, CAN-Trade program to put more people in place in those countries to help Canadians meet the challenges and opportunities of these new emerging markets, and to help small businesses form the partnerships and the alliances that they need in order to be competitive in our new global economy.
Last, what have the Conservatives done? We saw it lately. Who did they sock it to? Who did they cut the funds from? Seniors, adults who are illiterate, museums, and our court challenges program, which has been the basis on which many people have been able to assert their legal rights, their charter rights. They cut the Law Commission and they socked it to women's equality rights.
This is not the type of government that Canadians want. Canadians know that good policies are good politics. They will not stand for the government and that is why the government is falling so quickly in the polls. Canadians have seen its true colours. We will not stand for this. Let us get away from the cynicism and the small mindedness of the government, and let us govern for all Canadians.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know there will be many questions for this boisterous young fellow, so I will be as short as I possibly can. He is up in years. He is getting up there like me, a little older. He has been around a long time. I have been in this place 13 years and I think he has probably been here longer than that.
Could he tell me why the wonderful Liberal government that we had in charge for 13 years could not get rid of simple things like child pornography, which is destroying our youth and he knows it? Why did we not get that age of consent raised during those 13 years? We begged and pleaded for the sake of children. We should start doing the right things for them. Crimes against children are right out of control today. If members do not believe me, they should dig into it and find out because I have and I have been working on it for 13 years.
I cannot believe that an adult, a man sitting in the House of Commons, would not fight hard to get rid of child pornography, the biggest junk piece we have in this land and it is destroying youth. What is wrong with the Liberals that they would not get on the ball during these last 13 years and even attempt to do it? What are they afraid of?
[Interjection]
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not afraid of dealing with the issues of children in our society. The most important thing that we can do to help children is to give them a good start in life. 
In terms of getting tough on child pornographers and child abuse, absolutely. The most important thing for our children is that they have a good start in life, that they have the health care and the education that they need. 
This is why the Liberal government brought in the child care program of $5 billion in order to partner with groups right across this country, so that there would be a good start for these young people. We want them to have the proper training, the proper values, and the proper care that they need when they have working parents. That is how--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We do have many people wanting to ask the member questions. 
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George briefly because there are others as well.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the feigned indignation of the member opposite is actually quite amusing, considering what my colleague from Wild Rose just said was very true.
All through the 13 years that the Liberal government was in power, it failed. The Liberals resisted every attempt by the Conservatives to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16.
The member opposite from the Liberal Party said that the best way to protect children from sexual predators and child pornography is to ensure that they are raised properly in a good home, with the right schooling and health.
I would say to the member that there are many young children walking around in our communities thinking that they are safe. They have been raised in exactly those conditions and exactly those circumstances. They are being preyed on, on a daily or weekly basis, by the perverts that his government refused to take off the streets. That is the problem. Kids are getting a good start in this country. It is the perverts that are preying on them that his government failed to deal with. One has to wonder why not.
[Interjection]
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the hon. member--
Dick Harris:  I asked you a question.
Jim Peterson:  And I am going to respond with a question. You are the government--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please address your remarks through the Chair.
[Interjection]
Jim Peterson: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, that party on the other side is now the government. It is up to it to bring forward its agenda and how it wants to deal with the very issues that we are talking about. Let us ensure that the government is held accountable for what it has not done.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member. He knows very well that in 2001 a shipbuilding policy was laid on the minister of industry's desk. It is now 2006. The Liberal Party, when it was in power, did absolutely nothing for the shipbuilding industry. We are now into nine months of the Conservative government and we still have no word on when a shipbuilding strategy will be announced by any government.
My question for the member is quite clear. Although he has some very valid points against the Conservative government, why did his own government not do anything to assist the shipbuilding industry in this country?
[Interjection]
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that our then minister of industry, now the Minister of International Trade, had undertaken extensive consultations with the various regions in this country in order to develop a shipbuilding policy, one that would actually work.
The number of ships built in this country over the last decade or so has dwindled and declined. If Canada is to have a viable shipbuilding industry, it has to work with all the stakeholders in order to achieve the types of targets and the concentrated efforts that we want.
The Liberal government was working on that very actively when the election was called. I hope that the minister who was so active then is still carrying on the same type of consultations. I fully expect the government to bring forth that shipbuilding policy at an early moment.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus to serve notice that we will not support the budget implementation act, Bill C-28.
 My time does not permit me to outline the many shortcomings of the budget but let me at least say that I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to manoeuvre or negotiate any benefits through the budget because five minutes after the budget was tabled in the House of Commons, the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked outside into the scrum area and told all and sundry that it sounded good to him and that he would take it.
All the Conservatives needed was a dance partner and they got their dance partner first off, which is when all negotiations stopped. Normally in a minority Parliament there are opportunities for the opposition parties to do a little bit of horse trading. We were denied that opportunity because one party cashed in all its chips before the bargaining even started.
I will simply preface my remarks by saying how disappointed I am as an opposition member of one of the opposition parties that this minority Parliament was not even allowed to function the way minority Parliaments are supposed to operate because of the self-interest and selfish action on the part of the Bloc Québécois.
Let me touch on two reasons why we are disappointed in the budget because time does not permit any more detail than that. I come from the riding of Winnipeg Centre that used to be represented by Stanley Knowles. Stanley Knowles has a reputation as one of the founders, the father perhaps, of the Canadian pension system. I can safely say that Stanley Knowles would be doing flip-flops in his grave today if he knew that after nine years of surplus budgets by two senior parties in the country, old age security paycheques for low income seniors are actually going down as a result of the budget.
It sounds shocking. Some would challenge me perhaps to the veracity of those facts. I had to do a lot of research to plough through our arcane and complicated tax system but here are the facts. In actual fact, seniors have walked into my office with their July OAS cheque and their September OAS cheque. It is $10 a month lower. The government actually lowered the basic personal exemption for OAS and GIS senior pensioners. In other words, pensioners are paying tax on $400 a year more than they were last year, which, at a rate of 15.25%, is $60 per year or $5 per month. However, because it is for this six months, it was doubled to average it out over the year. It is $10 a month for this six month period.
This only applies to seniors who, because they have such a low income and no other source of revenue, they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. There is an offsetting pension credit in another category for private pension plans. However, if the person is one of those many low income seniors in my riding who are trying to survive on just his or her old age security and CPP, the person will get less this month than he or she did last month.
Maybe it is a byproduct or maybe it was an unforeseen consequence, I do not know. I am not accusing anybody of trying to starve low income seniors but that was the result and I cannot support it. I cannot do anything but condemn that result and consequence. The Conservatives should really rethink this. Surely, in a time of prosperity and record surpluses, we could do something for our low income seniors. 
I talked with some anti-poverty groups and they said that the $10 a month probably represents four or even five days of a grocery budget for a low income senior. It is not quite one full week but what they have left over to spend for food, $10 a month is a significant drop. At the very least, it is a quality of life issue. It is one less thing that they will be able to do with their income.
That is one of the reasons I cannot support the budget. The other reason is perhaps what is not in the budget. I cannot understand for the life of me why in the first Conservative budget of a newly formed government, the Conservatives would not have done something to plug the outrageous tax loophole that allows Canadian companies to set up dummy companies offshore to avoid paying their taxes in Canada.
Mr. Gerry Ritz:  Do you have an example?
Pat Martin:  The one high profile example in this country that irritates me to no end is the fact that when the Liberals were in power they tore up 10 out of 11 tax havens but left one remaining.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Which one?
Pat Martin:  Barbados is the one they left remaining, exactly where the former prime minister, the current member for LaSalle—Émard, has nine of his dummy shell companies shielded from paying Canadian taxes in that particular tax haven. That is offensive to me. One would think a prime minister of Canada would be proud to pay his taxes in this country. I am not going to dwell on that because that is the past. 
We now have a new Conservative government. Surely, it sees what is wrong when tax fugitives can use this blatant tax avoidance by setting up dummy companies. Some estimates say that the lost revenue is $7 billion a year. Why would the government nickel and dime all the little social programs that are important and critical to communities when it leaves $7 billion on the table? Who is it worried about offending?
The interesting thing about the changes to the election financing act is that big business can no longer buy elections or buy politicians. Who are we worried about offending by slamming the door shut on this last outrageous loophole? Big business cannot hurt anyone any more would be my message. We do not have to be afraid of Bay Street any more. We have been liberated. Why do we not stand up on our own hind legs and say that there will be no more freeloading and that companies can no longer be tax fugitives.
I got my information from this book that I will be happy to table. Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America is the name of the book. I agree. Corporate greed, run rampant, is undermining democracy and certainly undermining the ability of elected officials like us to implement plans, programs and strategies because it is starving us of resources.
I cannot understand why this budget did not deal with the outrageous issue of this tax loophole of tax havens. In the textbooks at Revenue Canada it is called “tax motivated expatriation”. That is the nice title for what we call sleazy, tax cheating loopholes. We demand that they be plugged and we will not let up until we close that last tax haven loophole.
I have another thing I want to raise. I cannot understand how the government failed to make the connection between two of its strategic goals and that is that it missed the opportunity to address job creation through energy conservation, or these burgeoning new economic opportunities coming from the necessary reality that we need to conserve energy in order to save the planet. 
There is a connection to be made there and progressive countries and political parties around the world are recognizing that saving the planet through energy conservation is not a negative and not an economic job killer. The job creation potential is enormous. The technological development potential is enormous. 
I argue that there should have been some kind of policy statement through this budget from the government that Canada should lay claim to this new burgeoning technology. We should become a centre of excellence of energy conservation technology to show the world. It frustrates me. We have a cold, northern, winter climate and we could demonstrate to the world how we do not have to freeze in the dark to conserve energy. There is an appetite in the country that our R and D could lead the way to saving the planet from global warming. Why we did not make that connection with the opportunity of this budget frustrates me to no end. 
I will close where I started by saying that regrettably the NDP cannot support Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my hon. colleague with interest and he had a couple of points that were worthy of further consideration.
He talked about horse trading. On January 23, Canadians got tired of the cattle and horse rustlers across the way when all they were left with was a pile of horse chips.
 During the last campaign all four parties in the House professed a desire to get tough on crime. The NDP believes in cradle to grave socialism but apparently it has forgotten about cradle to grave protection from criminals. I am wondering why the NDP has now decided to go soft on its campaign commitment to get tough on crime and has left us doing it alone on this side of the House.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague say that. He should perhaps look at the problems in Manitoba and the examples of where there is no contradiction between being a social democrat and being tough on crime. There is no connection between being soft on crime and being NDP.
In actual fact, the leader of our party, during the election campaign, was within, I believe, six months in the debate arguing about mandatory minimum sentences. The policy of the Conservatives and the policy of the NDP on mandatory minimum sentences were six months apart. It is not such a big bridge.
I cannot understand why the Conservatives missed the connection, when talking about being tough on crime, in clamping down on these tax havens. I call it economic treason when a company undermines the best interest of Canada, even though it is enjoying the benefits of the Canadian corporate structure and the stability of our great nation. That wholesale tax avoidance should be deemed to be criminal, in my mind.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, just a quick follow up to my colleague's question in regard to getting tough on crime.
 I have heard the member speak several times on this issue about problems that he has had in his own riding. He knows very well what I am talking about. I agree that the talk was out there during the election campaign. I heard it. I was on the platform with NDPers and Liberals, and even the Green Party was talking tough on crime.
What amazes me is what happens when we get here. We get to a committee and we have a bill before the committee, Bill C-9, which would get rid of house arrest, quit mollycoddling criminals and would get criminals to pay the penalties for the crimes they commit, which is called getting tough on crime, and yet the member and his party would not support that. They gutted that bill. 
Those members listened to every soft on crime witness that came before the committee but they did not listen to the victims of crime or to the police forces. They did not listen to a number of witnesses who testified why we need to stop things like house arrest. What they call petty crimes, it is not a petty crime when someone breaks into a home. It is not a petty crime when there is a home invasion. These kinds of things need to be dealt with right on the ground. This government had a bill to do just what Canadians asked us all to do and something on which we all campaigned.
Could the member tell me why his party is not supporting getting rid of house arrest for certain crimes that should never be even considered?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to take the cliché one step further. When people say tough on crime, it has become so commonly used that it has become almost meaningless. We prefer to say that we are smart on crime because our activities and our directions are results-oriented.
However, I will give one example where we are working at committee to strengthen one of the crime bills where we think the Conservative government was too soft, and that is the proceeds of crime components of the money laundering bill. We believe the federal government should be able to seize the assets of known criminals who are associated with criminal gangs, not just their bank accounts but their homes, their luxury cars, their luxury motorboats, et cetera. If they cannot show that those luxury items were bought with legitimately earned moneys, then the items should be seized and the reverse onus put on them to prove to us that the items were not the proceeds of crime.
That would be getting tough on crime and that would ensure that crime does not pay. It would go a long way to send a message to the biker gangs and the criminal organizations that flaunt their wealth and their luxury items right under the noses of the police officers. We believe in giving the police the tools they need to do their jobs and to make the case that crime does not in fact pay.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about this budget is the lack of consideration for our seniors, especially those widows and widowers of our veterans.
There are many problems within the system where we claw back, we take away and we do not give benefits to particular veterans or their families or the widowers of veterans because of technicalities in legislation. One would think that with a $13 billion surplus last year and a $6 billion surplus this year, which means the government is swimming in an extra $19 billion, it would have at least reached out to assist veterans and their widows.
I would just like the hon. member, who is from that great city of Winnipeg, to comment on what effect this has on his veterans and their families in Winnipeg.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his concern for seniors and specifically for veterans.
 It is not often that we get a letter from the Prime Minister promising something in writing, and we have it right here in our own hands, but my colleague was talking about a program called the veterans independence program, a tiny little program that costs pennies on the global scale of things and helps veterans and their survivors stay a little longer in their own homes before they have to be put into nursing homes, et cetera.
I have here a letter from the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, saying:
 You will be pleased to know that a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away. 
That is not just a campaign promise. That is a promise dated October 4, 2005. Why was that not in this budget? That tiny little budget line, this promise made, why was this not in the column of promises kept?
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-28, a bill that implements certain provisions of budget 2006.
The Conservative government's first budget, however, fails to address the real needs of Canadians and Canadian families and it unfortunately fails to move the country forward. About the only positive aspect of this budget is that it builds on the eight consecutive budgetary surpluses delivered by our Liberal government. This budget promises another budgetary surplus and I hope the Conservatives deliver on that.
Given the strong fiscal record the Conservatives inherited from our former Liberal government, it is outrageous that the government is raising income taxes, slashing spending by $1 billion a year and excluding any real vision for the future of Canada's prosperity. Let me go through some examples of why this budget fails.
It fails to provide real tax relief for low income and middle income Canadians. Eliminating Liberal income tax cuts in favour of a 1% GST cut has been panned by every serious economist in this country as a plan that will benefit higher income Canadians at the expense of the more needy.
The Conservatives are hiking income taxes, which means that many people who got a refund for the 2005 tax year will end up paying in 2006. The Conservatives are increasing the basic personal amount by $200 and increasing to 15.5% the lowest tax bracket. 
This budget fails to address the issue of climate change. The Conservative government has eliminated climate change programs and is abandoning the Kyoto accord. Its transit tax credit is costly and ineffective. It will cost about $400 million over two years and only increase transit use by 5%. This translates to a cost of $2,000 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved, 10 to 100 times the cost per tonne under our Liberal government green plan.
Furthermore, the Conservatives are planning to finance this measure and their climate change plan, which they are still working on, by eliminating $2 billion worth of existing climate change programs. 
Two of these programs are the EnerGuide for houses retrofit program and the wind power production incentive program.
 EnerGuide worked. It was helping thousands of Canadian households achieve energy efficiency increases in the range of 30% and doing it in a way that was cost effective. The Conservative government should do the right thing, stand up for the environment and for Canadian consumers, and bring EnerGuide back. Our Liberal government's EnerGuide program supported the retrofitting of more than 100,000 homes for more efficient use of energy before the Conservative government cancelled it.
Wind power is another important component of Canada's response to the challenges of energy conservation and global warming. The wind power industry is responsible for thousands of direct and indirect jobs across the country, and our government's wind power production incentive program, or WPPI, as it is affectionately referred to, is essential to attracting investment and ensuring the viability of this industry. 
The Conservative government has been exposed on this. We know that these programs were working and were cost effective. I am today calling for the government to immediately reinstate the EnerGuide program and the wind power production incentive program. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources recently adopted motions that also called for the reinstatement of these important programs.
Budget 2006 fails to provide a real child care choice for parents. As if $20 a week for child care is not bad enough, low income parents will be losing the young child supplement of the Canada child tax benefit. The Conservatives are cutting $1 billion from the Canada child tax benefit, a program that the Liberal government brought in and which was supposed to reach $10 billion this year.
Budget 2006 fails to establish a real plan to create child care spaces. Rather than honouring the Liberal child care agreements, something that the majority of provinces, parents and advocacy groups had demanded, the government insists on forging ahead with a nebulous plan which will mean that provinces will lose the stable funding agreed to by the previous government.
The budget offers nothing to meet the urgent needs of Canada's aboriginal peoples.
Rather than honour the historic Kelowna accord signed last November—which would have brought about great improvements in the lives of our first nations—the Conservative government chose to leave them behind and reduce planned funding by 80% from $5.3 million to just over $1 million.
Budget 2006 fails to make any significant investments in education and innovation. The Liberal government had a concrete vision that would have helped put us at the forefront of competitiveness and innovation. This lacklustre and visionless budget contains virtually nothing in this regard.
For example, our last fiscal update provided $2.5 billion for university research. The Conservative budget provides $200 million, less than one-tenth of our commitment. For student aid, our plan would have provided up to $6,000 per student for tuition over a four year program. The Conservative plan provides $80 for textbooks.
University students would like to see a portion of the Canada health and social transfer, the vehicle the federal government uses for transferring funds to the provinces and territories for social programs, dedicated to post-secondary education. This request I believe has some merit, provided accountability measures and performance benchmarks can be attached to these transfers along the lines of the 2004 health accord so that Canadians can evaluate how their province or territory is spending their money on post-secondary education and citizens can make comparisons with other jurisdictions. This makes some sense and is an example of a visionary initiative that is totally absent from budget 2006. Eighty dollars for students for textbooks just does not do it.
Budget 2006 fails because it cuts programs that help to build a highly trained and competitive workforce, programs like the training centre infrastructure fund. This fund was an important source for unions and management for the building of training centres. Union training centres are formed through partnerships among unions, management and government. They provide workers with the necessary information and on the job training to continuously improve their skills and remain at the top of their field.
The objectives of this partnership include developing and facilitating training programs that not only improve the vocational and safety skills of the industry but also enhance the employability of the students and meet changing and evolving market demands. In order to maintain this standard, training centres must upgrade their equipment and facilities to provide their students with the most innovative technology. The training centre infrastructure fund provided the necessary financial support to allow these centres to equip their facilities.
Recently, I attended the grand opening of a training centre operated by Local 285 of the Sheet Metal Worker's International Association in my riding. The local had been receiving funding from the training centre infrastructure fund until the Conservative government cut the program. The funding enabled the association to include in its training centre a state of the art welding laboratory and other equipment to ensure students receive the best training available. 
The centre provides essential training to students entering the field and to professionals who have been working in the field for years but need to upgrade their skills to remain employable. It also plans to set up a training program to encourage more young people to get into welding. Unfortunately, the training centre infrastructure fund was cut, which means it will not have enough money to offer these programs now. 
Budget 2006 also fails because it abandons Canada's forest industry and forest communities by caving in to the American lumber producers and the U.S. government and negotiating a bad softwood lumber deal that robs Canada of forest policy sovereignty. The U.S. will now dictate what forest policies we will have in Canada. The deals leaves $1 billion on the table in wrongly collected duties and it is in the hands of the U.S. government and U.S. producers.
The budget also stands by as our natural resource companies, companies like Inco and Falconbridge, are gobbled up by foreign companies. Are companies like Noranda and Husky Oil next? The government, with its laissez-faire attitude, does not care. I will be introducing legislation that will deal with this question and I am sure this House will have a good debate.
This budget really falls short. In 2007, or whenever the next budget is, the government will have a chance to rectify it. I look forward to that debate.
Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member spent a great deal of time talking about the former Liberal government's environmental record. I am really surprised, because it has such an appalling record. I would never expose that kind of record to this House. In fact, under the previous government, the Liberals made commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions by 6% over 1990 levels and today we are about 35% over what we should have been.
How can we be proud of that kind of record? I would ask the member to simply comment on how he can defend an environmental record that was such an abject failure and that resulted in greenhouse gas emissions actually increasing by a substantial amount rather than going down by the 6% that his government committed to.
[Interjection]
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that our government committed to Kyoto. They were stretch targets. They were ambitious targets. In the last couple of years of our mandate, we were starting to make some progress with our project green.
How can that member stand up and justify this climate change response or clean air response with its intensity based targets, which means that the absolute amount of greenhouse gases, for example, in the oil sands, will increase dramatically? If this is not a sop to the oil and gas industry and the oil sands, I do not know what is.
The government does not have the vision, the wherewithal or the political savvy to do something that is appropriate and that will allow us to reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The government's proposal, which is a plan to have a plan, does not really deal with climate change whatsoever. What we have to do is support our oil and gas industry, but we have to make sure it is done in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way. The government does not care one iota about that.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, that member should be embarrassed to stand up and try to defend the failed environmental plan of the government of that day, the Liberal government.
First, something should be clearly said about the so-called Kyoto plan that the Liberals tried to sell to Canadians. Let me rephrase that. The Liberals tried to ram the so-called Kyoto plan down the throats of Canadian taxpayers. The Liberal plan had unreachable targets and unrealistic goals. As a matter of fact, there is speculation that the plan was written on the back of a napkin. 
However, the important thing is this. While they were prepared to try to ram that Kyoto plan down the throats of taxpayers and target greenhouse gases in some obscure way, they were quite prepared to let cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax and other major centres be totally untouched in regard to the air pollution and the smog created in those cities on a daily basis. There was nothing in the Liberal plan that dealt with smog in big cities or in any size of city. 
All the Liberals had was an unworkable greenhouse gas plan, with no price attached to it, and unrealistic goals. That is an embarrassment for the government of that day. I am surprised at that member. He is quite a reasonable fellow and, I have been told, quite half-smart too. I am surprised that he would want to stand up and try to defend that at the risk of embarrassing himself.
[Interjection]
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, normally the member for Cariboo—Prince George speaks with some knowledge and integrity. This attack is totally uncalled for.
When I was a young person growing up, if I came home and said that I had tried to do well with the hockey team, but because the previous coach did this or that, it was screwed up, or whatever, my parents would have told me to grow up, to move forward and to take responsibility.
We hear this juvenile kind of attack by the Conservatives, time in and time out, about the Liberal government record. I am extremely proud of it. Our government accomplished so many good things during our mandate. 
At one point the Conservatives have to take responsibility for their decisions. They have to move forward. The Conservatives cannot get away much longer with tossing the issues back to what the Liberals did when we were the government. We did a lot of tremendous things that Canada is much better for today, and I say that with some pride and some modesty.
The government is doing nothing about climate change. At least we committed ourselves to the Kyoto accord. They were tough targets. Frankly, we could have done a better job of providing the incentives, the signals and the market instruments to better get us there. The Liberal government started to make progress in the last couple of years of our mandate. 
Instead of tossing stones, the government has to deal with the issue and move the country forward. The government is not doing that. It is ignoring the problem and Canada will not be a better place because of that.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg said earlier, we in the NDP, and I am sure it is no surprise to my Conservative counterparts, will not support Bill C-28.
It is very simple to understand where the Conservative ideology comes from and that of the New Democratic Party.
 The government earlier reported a $13.2 billion surplus, which was applied to a particular item called the debt. We can argue if that is a good thing or a bad thing. The fact is that was done. We now hear from media reports that the government has an additional $6 billion in the first five months of the year. Those are estimates. We have not see it. We are talking about almost $19 billion of extra money.
I have flipped through Bill C-28. I did not go word by word, but I gave it a pretty good glance. I do not see anything in it document that helps veterans and their families in any way, shape or form.
I will give an example. My colleague brought up a letter that was written on October 4, 2005, by the then leader of the official opposition, the now Prime Minister. I will read it word for word and then I will table the document later. I have raised this in the House before as has my hon. colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, but I am going to raise it again. The letter is to Joyce Carter of St. Peter's, Nova Scotia on Cape Breton. She is in her eighties. The letter states:
 Dear Mrs. Carter: 
 On behalf of [the hon. member] thank you for your letter received on September 19. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond. 
 You will be pleased to know that a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away. 
 We thank you again for writing and want to assure you that we are committed to improving the quality of life for Canadian seniors and veterans. 
Here is the letter from Ms. Carter back to me and other MPs. She says:
 Dear [member for Sackville—Eastern Shore]: 
 Enclosed are copies of the letters, one written to me on behalf of the hon. [Prime Minister]... 
 As you will see in the Williams Lake Tribune [the hon. Minister of veterans affairs]-- 
This is when he was up in July of this year. She goes on to say:
 --noted that the VIP program actually saves the department money.... Otherwise they would have to go into a home or institutional care. 
That is what happens to these widows. If they cannot be in their home, they have to go into institutionalized care which costs everyone a lot of money. She goes on to ask me to do everything in my power to work with other members of Parliament to ensure the Prime Minister kept his word.
We now have Bill C-28 on October 27 of this year. There is nothing in the document to maintain the promise that was made to a woman in her eighties to look after a veteran before he passed away.
I remind my hon. colleagues in the Conservative Party that the Liberals did not do anything on this issue. The Conservatives now have an opportunity. We all wear the poppy with pride and distinction and so we should. It is in honour of our veterans and those who served to give us peace, freedom and democracy.
As I said in a statement the other day, what happens after November 12 when the poppy comes off? These veterans and their families need assistance from the government in their old age. If the government is not going to provide the assistance when it is swimming in money, when is it going to do it? When will the Conservative Party actually put this program in the budget? There are many programs that should be instituted for veterans and their families, but this one program was promised.
The government cannot stand up and tell us to support our troops and our veterans and not institute the policies that assist them when they need help the most.
I remind the Conservative government, and many of my Conservative colleagues, who I consider my good friends, know this to be a fact, that our veterans are Canada's greatest volunteers. They sacrificed their youth so we can stand in this place and argue points of principle in a democratic fashion. It is great to live in a country where politicians can retire and they are not executed. The fact is we can only do that because of the sacrifice of Canadian veterans and their families.
Just a few days prior to Remembrance Day, these veterans and their widows are asking for these programs, which the government admits itself would save it money, yet it refuses to put them in the document.
What are we supposed to tell Joyce Carter and the thousands of women across the country? Do we tell them that the Conservatives are heartless, that they just write letters that are meaningless, that they are taking advantage of the elderly? Of course not. I do not believe the Conservatives are those types of individuals. However, a letter was written on behalf of their leader, now the Prime Minister, promising to do it immediately. Nine months later there is not a single word in the documents.
We in the NDP cannot stand up and allow this to continue. I am hoping either the veterans affairs minister, or the parliamentary secretary or even the Prime Minister will stand up in the House very soon, in fact it should be done today, and announce that the VIP program, as was promised, will be extended immediately, without reservation, for those, mostly women in their late seventies and eighties, who cared for our veterans and who are very proud individuals. It is unconscionable that the government would not do that.
I am offering the Conservatives the olive branch. If they do that, we will support their efforts in the VIP program.
We can go on and on regarding the budget. However, there is another item I want to bring forward. I cannot let it go by because I know my colleagues who sit next to me would question me as to my studiousness on it, and this is there is nothing in the budget on shipbuilding.
In 2001 the then minister, Mr. Tobin, called a meeting of the industry, labour and communities. They put together a policy called “Breaking Through: Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”. It has been sitting on the desk of the Minister of Industry since 2001. 
We heard from the previous Liberal member who spoke that the Minister of International Trade, who was then a Liberal, said, “We're doing consultations”. Those consultations happened in 2001. The policy is a very thin read. It is only about 10 pages. They asked the previous Liberal government and the Liberals did absolutely nothing.
Now the Conservatives are here. I want to remind my Conservative colleagues that there is a potential of $22 billion worth of economic activity that would keep the five major shipyards in our country alive for a long time. Just maybe a lot of those Atlantic Canadians, who are working out west, can come back home and work.
The reason why we have so many Atlantic Canadians working in Ontario and out west is, as we jokingly say, we got all the work done back home and we are just helping the rest of the country out. If the government instituted a shipbuilding policy, the yards in Marystown, Halifax, Levis, Quebec, Port Welland and Vancouver would be humming along for many years. The government knows this.
 The Coast Guard, the military, the ferries and the laker fleet need replacements. There are $22 billion of opportunity. What is the government hinting at? Free trade deals with EFTA and Korea, which would put the death knell on our industry. I encourage the government to very quickly announce the shipbuilding policy on replacements for our fleets so our families and our workers across the country can go back to work.
Again, budgetary times are times of opportunities. As I said on the VIP and the veterans program, the government missed out on that opportunity. It has missed out on the shipbuilding policy. These are lost opportunities.
I do not know why for the life of me the government would want to proceed with a budgetary process that allows oil and gas companies, some of the most profitable companies on the planet, swimming in excess profits, further tax breaks while seniors, students, new immigrants, people with disabilities, the environment, all take a back seat. I do not understand it.
I simply do not understand the thinking of the Conservative government. I speak to the individual members of the Conservative Party. I do know that most of them really do care about what they do. The fact is that their government is heading in the wrong direction. I ask them to steer that ship back, to get it on the right track.
We are here representing constituents, not the special interests in the large corporate world. Those are some of the reasons we in the NDP simply cannot at this time support the budgetary process.
I must say how disappointed I am in the Bloc Québécois. Many members of the Bloc are very decent hard-working people but within five minutes of the tabling of the budget documents, their leader went out and said, “No problem, we will support it”. He completely gave away the opportunity to negotiate and horse trade with the government. We did that with the Liberals which resulted in previous Bill C-48. I was very disappointed with the Bloc and I would hope that the Bloc would reconsider that position so that we can actually negotiate this thing, change it before it goes anywhere and maybe include some of the concerns that I and my hon. colleague from Winnipeg mentioned.
Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way knows the strong financial position that the government inherited from the Liberals, and as he mentioned, still the Conservatives have done nothing for veterans.
He also mentioned the string of years in which the former Liberal government had surpluses and that the surpluses were not put to some of the uses that he mentioned. I would remind him that the government of the day had to deal with the debt left by nine years of mismanagement by the Mulroney Conservative government. He has already pointed out that we have had nine months of mismanagement by the so-called new Conservative government. In his own words, they are swimming in cash and they have done nothing for the veterans.
How can any Canadians have confidence in the government when it cut the most needy in our country by $1 billion, a cut to the elderly, seniors, women's groups and the illiterate? And on the same day, the Conservatives took credit for a former surplus of $13.2 billion. How can anyone have any confidence in the so-called new Conservative government with the actions it has taken in its nine months of mismanagement?
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague. There are many concerns I could talk about regarding the past ills of the Liberal government over 13 years, but we are going after the Conservative side right now.
I thank him for talking about the cuts affecting some of the most vulnerable in our society. We are getting a lot of mixed signals from the government. We got the supplementary estimates the other day from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The estimates very clearly show some pretty drastic cuts to science, health and oceans management. These are the estimates; I did not make them up. The estimates also show quite a reduction in full time equivalents in terms of the people who will be working in the department.
We asked the minister in committee about it. He said in the House and in committee that there will be no cuts to his department. He gave us his own estimates showing cuts and yet he stood up and said that there are no cuts. 
The member is absolutely right. We are getting conflicting messages out of the government. 
For example, the Minister of National Defence said maybe a military solution is not the answer in Afghanistan. The next day he asked for more troops and tanks.
We just want some consistency out of the government. If we could get that, then maybe we could have a proper dialogue in the country.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to my hon. friend who clearly supports the military, as I do.
He talked about veterans benefits. I am a veteran. I spent 30 years in the air force and I am proud of it. I would like some acknowledgement from my hon. colleague from the NDP about the veterans charter and the broad based comprehensive list of benefits that it will bring to veterans in Canada.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I should tell my hon. colleague that I have quite a file on him in my own office from the days when he was a non-politician and corresponded regarding issues at Shearwater. I thank him very much for those efforts.
The veterans charter as he talked about was actually done by the previous government with wide based consultation of all parliamentarians and it was introduced into law by the current government. Both sides actually deserve a bit of credit for that.
There are many programs that have been left out of the charter, such as the deductibility of the assistance program and the clawback of the pensions. When a veteran becomes disabled and applies for Canada pension plan disability, it is actually clawed back from his superannuation. There is the veterans independence program. There are many things we need to improve on behalf of veterans and their families.

Statements By Members
Pugwash Peace ExchangeMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1957 industrialist Cyrus Eaton assembled a group of 22 prominent scientists from around the world to explore ways to promote peace and especially nuclear disarmament.
The first meeting was held at the Thinkers' Lodge in Pugwash, Nova Scotia and included Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and Joseph Rotblat. This process continues today with Pugwash conferences held around the world.
Next July the Pugwash Peace Exchange will celebrate the 50th anniversary by holding a conference entitled “2007 Extraordinary Workshop” to examine nuclear disarmament in the context of history and today's current urgent events.
Notable participants will include Hans Blix, Nobuyasu Abe, Sergio Duarte, and many others.
Pugwash Peace Exchange organizers Senator Doug Roche and Stephen Leahey urge those interested in nuclear disarmament to put July 5 on their calendars and come to Pugwash to participate in this important conference.
Please check the website for further information at www.pugwashpeaceexchange.org.
Italian Canadian CommunityMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this House who share the privilege of having Canadians of Italian heritage residing in their communities, I am pleased to welcome the mayor il sindaco di Pizzoferrato to Ottawa and to the House today.
Mayor Palmerino Fagnilli is visiting Canada and the hundreds of Pizzoferratesi who have made a significant contribution to all aspects of social and cultural life in our country.
I know that all members are aware of that special simpatia which exists between Italy and Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I extend to Mayor Fagnilli our best wishes in his town's and the region of Abruzzo's gemellaggio, the twinning of our Italian and Canadian communities.
Youth CentreMrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the people of Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville celebrated the construction of the new Maison des Jeunes.
The centre provides an appropriate space downtown where young people can make decisions and assume their responsibilities by actively contributing to the selection and organization of the activities that interest them.
I would like to thank the mayor of Saint-Bruno, Claude Benjamin, and the municipal counsellors for having so wisely invested their time, energy and resources. Thank you also to their predecessors, Jean Gérin, Pierre Filion and Denis Duval, who believed in and promoted this project.
I must also commend the director, Maxime Noël, and his team of volunteers for their dedication to the youth of Saint-Bruno, and particularly the president, Yves Girard.
This is an excellent starting point for these young people, and the opening of the Maison des Jeunes building, which we celebrated last Monday, also represents a wonderful new beginning for the youth of Saint-Bruno.
Harold Thomas SheaMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at this very moment in Halifax, family and friends of the late Harold Thomas Shea are gathered to pay their respects to this beloved native Nova Scotian.
Harold Shea was a World War II flying ace, a journalist, once a parliamentary reporter, and ultimately editor-in-chief of one of Canada's only remaining independent newspapers, The Chronicle Herald. Harold was a devoted veteran and leader in the Royal Canadian Legion.
Harold Shea was my first boss. He loved people of all ages and stages and stations in life, but he was especially devoted to encouraging and mentoring young people. He gave me my first real job as a rookie reporter at the age of 18, when I did not have a clue what I was doing. He did not always agree with my politics, but throughout my career he remained a supportive friend and a true inspiration.
Harold had a vast network of family and friends. We will all miss him deeply. We will miss him as a friend, but we will also miss his tireless work and his endless contributions to charitable organizations and community causes, too many to enumerate.
On this occasion we express our deep condolences to Harold's family.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Canadian ForcesMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry are showing their support for Canadian troops by snapping up thousands of lawn and window signs and lapel pins from my office. They are adding their signatures to a letter of support that will be sent to Afghanistan on Remembrance Day.
Corporal Grant Wagar, one of six members of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders serving in Afghanistan, recently sent me this message:
 I've been hearing a lot about how much support we're getting from Cornwall...Thank you! There are two basic things here that keep us going--The brotherhood among our fellow soldiers, and support from friends and family at home. The idea of one's community giving half a dozen individuals (as well as the armed forces as a whole) such support is just amazing....I doubt you or the good people of Cornwall realize the effect your efforts and support have on us. 
The morale of our troops depends on our support. I encourage all my hon. colleagues to help their constituents show their pride in our military men and women.
Global Centre for PluralismMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week His Highness the Aga Khan visited Ottawa to announce the planned location for the Global Centre for Pluralism.
The centre will transform the former location of the Canadian War Museum on Sussex Drive into a non-denominational, not for profit organization dedicated to fostering pluralism and peace. In his own words, the Aga Khan observed that “Tolerance, openness and understanding towards other people's cultures, social structures, values and faiths are now essential to the very survival of an interdependent world”.
The centre will work in cooperation with the Canadian government to engage in research and promote dialogue about ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity with a view to help foster pluralistic values and establish similar institutions worldwide.
Ray JohnsonMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week my hometown of Ancaster, indeed the greater city of Hamilton, lost one of its dearest citizens, Ray Johnson. The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek paid tribute to Dr. Johnson yesterday, and I rise today to amplify that tribute to a truly great Canadian.
Known as a gentle giant to many, he had credentials that were impressive by any measure. He was Her Majesty The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal winner for 2002, Ancaster Citizen of the Year in 2003, and Hamilton Citizen of the Year in 2005, but ultimately he shied away from recognition. Ray was a kind, selfless and caring person to the very core. Ray was best known as a tireless volunteer serving his community day in and day out, touching lives young and old, helping people overcome poverty and addictions, and so much more. Ray did this through organizations such as the Lions Club locally and internationally, the Children's Aid Society and the Police Diversity Advisory Committee, to name just a few.
Ray, your family, your friends and your country will miss you.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was on the Hill last Wednesday with unemployed people from throughout Quebec who had come to demand a major overhaul of the employment insurance program and to express their disappointment regarding the government's new program for older workers. 
The group included a number of older workers from the textile industry in Huntingdon. That was the third time in 21 months that these workers have come to express their despair to the federal government. They have been deceived and betrayed. I saw men in tears that day, expressing their hopelessness because they have nothing left. 
These men listened as the Minister of Industry scornfully responded to the Bloc Québécois' questions concerning this bogus POWA. They saw how disconnected this government is from reality and how insensitive it is to their situation. 
The Bloc Québécois will continue to fight alongside these workers.
2006 Poppy CampaignMr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons today to recognize the launch of the Royal Canadian Legion's 2006 Poppy Campaign.
While meeting with my constituents in the riding of Macleod two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of helping the local poppy campaign in High River get an early start by purchasing the first poppy from two local veterans, Guido Giacomuzzi and Owen Howe. 
The money raised by the High River Legion through the poppy campaign helps veterans in the Foothills region, ensuring that they will not be forgotten. This is also a way to show our continued support for our young men and women who are defending our freedom around the world.
Today I encourage all of my colleagues in the House of Commons and all Canadians to make a donation to the Royal Canadian Legion to help remember and honour our veterans by wearing a poppy.
Rural Mail DeliveryHon. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I want to emphasize the importance of keeping rural mail delivery routes and rural post offices open across the country.
I come from a region and represent a riding that is predominantly rural. Any break in rural delivery for us would be disastrous. 
In 1993 the Liberal government brought in a moratorium on rural post office closures and now it is the Liberal Party again that is standing up to protect rural mail delivery. On Wednesday this House unanimously adopted a motion calling on the Minister of Transport to restore traditional rural mail delivery. Yesterday, when asked when and what kind of action could be expected, the minister could not provide a straightforward answer. His spokesperson even admitted that they do not have a detailed plan, budget date or a target date yet. She said, “It's just going back to what it was”. Canada Post is singing a different song. I do not know who is calling the shots here. 
There is no plan by the government and no leadership on this file. Canadians living in rural Canada must have their mail delivery restored. There must be an end to Conservative dithering.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, knowledge is power and this Conservative government wants to empower western Canadian farmers. We gave farmers the power to oversee how their wheat dollars are spent by the Canadian Wheat Board. We did this by including the Wheat Board in the federal accountability act.
In this act we gave farmers the power to use access to information to investigate whether or not the Wheat Board was spending its dollars for the benefit of farmers. We did this by wisely allowing farmers access to information and yet we still protected commercially sensitive information. It is, after all, supposed to be the farmers' money and not the Wheat Board's money, something that is sometimes forgotten.
Shamefully, unelected, unaccountable Liberal Party hacks had the act amended to remove the Wheat Board from this scrutiny. What are the arrogant Liberals afraid of? What are they trying to hide? Why are they afraid of farmers? Why are they afraid of the truth?
AfghanistanMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow thousands of people will be joining New Democrats across Canada to show support for our troops in Afghanistan. We are showing support by rallying for peace. We are showing support by demanding the withdrawal of troops from this search and kill mission. There is no clear goal, no exit strategy, and no prospect of success in this Bush style war.
Canadian soldiers and innocent civilians are getting maimed and killed. The Conservative government followed the lead of the Liberals for this disastrous mission and has squandered $4 billion, with just a fraction of that for humanitarian aid and reconstruction. We need a new approach based on dialogue, rebuilding and peace development. 
We urge all members of the House to support our troops by joining our call for peace.
Ukrainian Literary SocietyMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Fort Frances Ukrainian Literary Society have been the source of learning and light not only for Ukrainian families but also for the entire Fort Frances community and surrounding area. They have displayed exemplary dedication in helping to preserve Ukrainian culture through the offering of high quality Ukrainian food, dance, music, theatrical performances and fellowship at the Prosvita for the past 78 years.
The people of the Fort Frances area and Rainy River district have greatly benefited from the contributions of the Ukrainian Literary Society. Of particular note is 97 year old Walter Andrusco, whose guidance, wisdom and instruction in Ukrainian dance, language and song has been an invaluable legacy to the people of Thunder Bay—Rainy River. 
I trust that all members of Parliament will join me in thanking the Fort Frances Ukrainian Literary Society for their many years of service to the people of Canada.
Supporting Communities Partnership InitiativeMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, organizations have come to shout about it on the Hill. People in the streets are suffering from it. Homelessness is a problem. Why not renew the SCPI? What do people have to do to be heard?
We, the elected members of this House, speak for the voiceless, who will suffer from your uncomprehending refusal to renew the SCPI.
The groups that help these people have come to talk with us and share their concerns, yet this government has turned a deaf ear to them.
No one is immune to mental illness, no one can swear that they will not sink into alcoholism, no one can promise that they will never suffer from depression. No one wants to wind up on the street, yet this government is refusing to tell the homeless whether it will provide the necessary funding for the organizations that help them and that are often their only hope.
The Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to enhance the SCPI, make it permanent and transfer it to Quebec. 
Aboriginal AffairsRoger Valley: Mr. Speaker, in my riding, as in the rest of Canada, first nations are waiting for action on water issues. We heard in the House this week from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that he was aware of the health problems with poor water and sewer facilities with the Pikangikum First Nation. Being aware is not good enough. We need action.
This community, since he is aware of it, is not even on his priority list. Yet the northwestern health unit categorized this as the worst it has seen in this region. It needs help. In fact, the grand chief for Treaty No. 9, Stan Beardy, has dozens of communities with health issues due to the inaction of the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Even yesterday we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development talk about progress. Enough talk, we need some action. I urge the minister to take immediate action to provide safe, clean drinking water in every first nations community in Canada.
Canadian Food Inspection AgencyMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, I want to take time to recognize the importance of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Created in April 1997, the agency is mandated to protect the safety of Canada's food supply, animal health and the plants that go into safe, high-quality food products. 
The agency has a proven track record. We have only to think of the discovery of the golden nematode in the Saint-Amable area, where the agency, working with its American counterpart, managed to reopen the border in just six weeks, allowing Quebec producers to export their excellent products.
Whereas the Bloc Québécois—a party with no decision-making authority—was powerless to lift the embargo, Canada's new government got real results for producers in Quebec, in the interests of all Quebeckers.
Résovi International Conference on Violence against WomenMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I salute the organizers of the Résovi international conference on violence against women held in Montreal, which came to a close on Wednesday. At this important event, the various forms of violence against women were discussed, namely spousal violence and sexual violence in various contexts, including trafficking of women. Various means of helping the victims of this violence were examined and courses of action against this scourge were established.
While in Quebec and throughout the world people are mobilizing to fight violence against women, the Prime Minister of this Conservative government is not even keeping the promises he made to women on January 18, 2006. He has cut funding to women's groups for their legal defence activities, he has refused to enact proactive legislation for pay equity at the federal level, and he announced a cut of more than 40% to the budget of Status of Women Canada. The Bloc Québécois will continue to denounce this situation.

Oral Questions
Government PoliciesHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a minority, this  Prime Minister says it is the government's obligation to take into account the priorities of the opposition, but he ignores his own advice. He raises taxes; slashes help for the vulnerable; kills the Kyoto plan; rips billions from child care, aboriginal people and training; undermines the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and snuggles up to extreme republicans. This is all contrary to what Canadians want.
When will the  Prime Minister curtail his belligerence to acknowledge that 65% of Canadians did not vote for him?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under the heading of “cozying up to extreme republicans”, yesterday we learned about the visit of certain Liberals last year to Governor Schwarzenegger, “the gubernator”, in California. 
I find this a bit peculiar coming from the opposition House leader who said in the Toronto Star on October 24 that his party was looking at using parliamentary tactics to slow Commons business.
This government is all about getting things done for Canadians by cutting taxes, fighting crime, and bringing back accountability to government. We are delivering on our commitments. We invite all the opposition parties to cooperate with us.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the  Prime Minister will bulldoze anyone not in his little ideological clique. He even shuts down parliamentary committees. Journalists call this attitude ham-fisted bloody mindedness. Then he complains when he cannot force his unilateral right-wing agenda down Parliament's throat.
Well, we all got elected to this place, not just the Conservatives. However, look who is filibustering, only the government itself. When will the Conservatives stop behaving like petulant bullies?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the environment committee, for instance, the government was trying to proceed with the important review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the opposition, instead, wanted to move the focus to an opposition private member's bill. That is all about politics, not about results. That is why Canadian voters decided to change government on January 23.
 I want to know when the Liberals are going to bring back Bill C-9 to restore all of the offences they removed from that bill. Why is it that the Liberals, on eight criminal justice bills before this House, are so uncooperative in producing results to give us the tools to fight the--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wascana.
JusticeRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this minority Conservative government has no significant parliamentary agenda, but one standing committee, the justice committee, is overburdened by a string of ad hoc, one-off proposals designed to cause a logjam. 
Liberals have a plan to get things moving. Of the 11 justice bills before Parliament today, we will pass six of them right now, today. That will save two months of parliamentary time and give the justice committee room to tackle all the others.
Will the government accept this proposal, or is it only interested in justice by fear and slogan?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we will pass any government bill, of course, in one day. We need the accord of all the opposition parties. We will not pass Bill C-9 today with the Liberal amendments which gutted that bill. 
He says we have no legislative agenda. We have a bill to amend conditional sentencing, for a DNA data bank, to criminalize street racing, and to raise the age of protection. We have a payday loans bill, a bill to increase minimum sentencing, a bill to cut judicial compensation increases, and a bill to deal with dangerous offenders. Unlike the Liberals who talked about crime during the election, we are actually acting to fight crime.
The EnvironmentMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all sectors of Quebec society came together as one to call on the federal government to respect the Kyoto protocol. Quebec's environment minister, Claude Béchard, asked yet again that the Government of Canada give Quebec the $328 million it was promised. The response was: not one red cent for Quebec. Conversely, Ontario will receive the $540 million it was promised, and rightfully so.
Why this double standard? The Government of Quebec wants to achieve its Kyoto objectives. Is that why the federal government wants to punish it in this way?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, it is odd that the Liberal members continue to ask questions about the Kyoto protocol when it was their government in 1997 that signed it, but totally failed in achieving its objectives. Greenhouse gas emissions increased by nearly 30% under the Liberal government.
However, the Conservative government took action to deliver concrete results as far as the environment is concerned, including the clean air bill. 
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, that is not action, it is nothing but hot air.
The government has shown that it hates democracy as much as it hates the Kyoto protocol. Yesterday morning, the Conservative members systematically blocked the work of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Shortly thereafter, the Minister of the Environment said that the government would stop these anti-democratic procedures if we agreed to vote in favour of its hot air bill on the environment.
It is blackmail and only the weak resort to blackmail. Those who use blackmail lack courage and a valid argument. 
This House and Canadians are in favour of the Kyoto protocol and blackmail will not change that.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, if the Kyoto protocol is so important, why did that hon. member and his party, in 13 years of Liberal government, not take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Why did the Liberal leadership candidates, including the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, say that reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the former Liberal government was a complete failure? 
The current government recently established concrete targets and a tangible plan. We will continue to take action to improve air quality and our environment for the health of Canadians.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal finance minister did an about-face yesterday and confirmed that he would pay the $538 million the previous government had promised to Ontario to reduce the number of coal-fired power plants.
Yet the Minister of the Environment has formally refused to pay Quebec the $328 million it needs to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets.
How can the government explain that it is not paying anything to Quebec, which has a plan to reduce greenhouse gases, when Ontario, which has no plan, will be receiving $538 million? How can the government explain this double standard?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, as part of our clean air regulatory agenda, we are working with the provinces, industry and other stakeholders on national regulations to reduce the greenhouse gases and pollutants that produce smog across the country.
The environment is an area of shared jurisdiction, and we encourage the provinces and territories to take steps to support these efforts. We have provided strong support, totalling $1.3 billion, for public transit infrastructure for all the provinces in the 2006 budget.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to my question. I will therefore repeat the question, in the hope that someone is listening.
The Minister of the Environment is trying to create a diversion by claiming that the funding for Quebec is part of the discussions on the fiscal imbalance. Quebec wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and achieve the Kyoto protocol targets. Quebec has the will, Quebec has a plan. All Quebec lacks is the $328 million that was promised. What is the minister waiting for to pay up?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying that a certain sum of money was promised by the Liberals. Many Canadians received empty promises from the Liberals.
This government has made firm commitments to work with the provinces, with industry and with all Canadians to improve the quality of the air we breathe. We will continue to work toward that goal, with good cooperation from the Government of Quebec and particularly Quebec's environment minister.
Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while downplaying the greenhouse gas issue, the Minister of the Environment has stated that funding for the Quebec plan will be part of the discussions on the fiscal imbalance. Two envelopes are needed: one for the Kyoto protocol and another for the fiscal imbalance.
Does the minister intend to pay the $328 million promised to Quebec now so that it can reach the Kyoto protocol targets?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is working with all provinces to deal with climate change, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. We look forward to continuing to work with Quebec.
Actually, Minister Béchard has been invited to go to the next Kyoto protocol meeting in Kenya and the minister has been invited to be part of that.
Marcel Lussier: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal imbalance should not be used as a convenient catch-all so that the Minister of the Environment can avoid her responsibilities.
Will the government realize that what is really needed is $328 million for the Kyoto protocol now, and $3.9 billion annually for the fiscal imbalance in the next budget?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about fiscal imbalance but what we are talking about is the environment for the health of all Canadians.
We have heard from the environment commissioner that the previous Liberal government announced $6 billion and spent $1.6 billion. Obviously there are a lot of broken promises and a lot of hot air. The Liberals did absolutely nothing for 13 years and I say shame on them.
Canada PostMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Vancouver, hard-working letter carriers took a courageous stand and refused to deliver anti-gay literature. The so-called literature amounts to a homophobic rant calling HIV-AIDS a homosexual plague comparing gays and lesbians to fleas on rats and blaming homosexuality for the global spread of this devastating disease.
Will the President of the Treasury Board tell Canada Post that it is totally unacceptable to spread misinformation and hate literature, and will he ensure that rules are in place to prevent this from happening again?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the incident to which the member refers but we will take the matter under advisement.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this was not mail. It was advertising. Since Canada Post has refused to deliver advertising in the past for the Vancouver store called The Art of Loving, how can it justify approving advertising that is nothing more than hate against gays and lesbians?
This hate mail would never meet the standards of any newspaper, TV or radio station in Canada and yet Canada Post, I would point out, says that it meets its standards. Why does it have such low standards and why does it not have a policy against this?
Again I ask the parliamentary secretary to make it clear that he will instruct Canada Post to bring in rules that will ensure this kind of hate literature is not distributed through our postal system.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot comment on the particulars of a case that I am not familiar with, but I will say that there are hate crime laws within the Criminal Code. The government will always fully enforce those laws and we would encourage attorneys general to do the same.
We would condemn expressions of hatred toward any Canadian for any reason without qualification, but as to the particular matter the member refers to with respect to Canada Post, I am sure the minister will look into it and get back to her.
The EnvironmentHon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to talk of slowing parliamentary business. For two hours yesterday the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre hijacked the environment committee to prevent any discussion of the Kyoto implementation bill which passed second reading in the House.
The government is completely ignoring the fact that it is not a majority government and must work with the opposition parties if it wants to get anything done. It must also accept that we on this side of the House have a right to study private members' business.
Will the Prime Minister accept the will of Parliament and allow the environment committee to study the Kyoto bill without interference from the Prime Minister's Office?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and this Parliament are making it very clear that we will not permit the opposition to ignore parliamentary rules, which is exactly what has happened and why there was a point of order.
A point of order was raised because of a breach of parliamentary procedure. The members need to apologize for what they are doing in trying to obstruct what the government is trying to do. We need to clean up the air that Canadians breathe for the health of all Canadians. I say shame on them.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the decision that was challenged was made by the Conservative chairman of the committee.
 After hijacking the environment committee, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre revealed the true intentions of the minority Conservative government. He described the Kyoto plan as “obsolete and out of date”. The true colours are exposed.
Who is making climate change policy in this country: the environment minister who claims she supports the Kyoto process, or the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre who has exposed the real position of the government, which is to kill Kyoto?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, that comes from a member of a party that announced $6 billion in environmental announcements and spent $1.6 billion and got nothing done. Now those members have the audacity to applaud the fact that they did absolutely nothing for 13 years. I say shame on them. They owe an apology.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the House could keep the standing ovations down to a bare minimum.
The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
InfrastructureMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Gatineau, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said that the federal government had no intention, and I quote, “of interfering in the fiscal affairs of municipalities, or of interfering between provincial governments and municipalities”.
It seems the President of the Treasury Board did not get the word, because he interfered in Ottawa's municipal election by putting an end to the light rail project despite the fact that the contract was already signed. 
The two ministers are contradicting one another, and I would like to know whether the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities approved the President of the Treasury Board's decision in this case.
Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when this government ran for office, we promised a new era of accountability. We promised to change the way government business was done in Ottawa and we are doing exactly that.
Gone are the days where backroom deals could be made on billion dollar contracts only to see huge cost overruns and scandals brought forward by the previous government.
 Let us hear what Michael Polowin, a commercial property lawyer writing in the Ottawa Citizen on October 16, had to say. He said:
 [This project] deserves to be dealt with in the full light of day, instead of in secrecy. The lack of full and honest disclosure leaves me wondering what else is there that we don't know. 

Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board President's interference in this matter is an abuse by a federal minister of his office for political gain. The Transport minister,  clearly implied that while it was okay for the Treasury Board President to meddle with this particular file, the federal government will not be messing with other municipalities.
Why this particular municipality only? Is it because this is in the Treasury Board President's own riding where he has some personal political vendettas? Why did the transport minister, who is the lead minister on this file, allow this political interference?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Hull—Aylmer that this is the only municipal project anywhere in the country where I have had two formal Liberal candidates call me and write to me and express huge concerns about this project. Two Liberal candidates have expressed significant concerns to say that this project cannot be delivered at its cost.
Let us look at what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said. It said, “Taxpayers have been misled from the get-go and it is about time the light rail project got looked at by fresh eyes. This project has been cloaked in secrecy and half-truths for months. We will bring light where there is darkness. We will bring”--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Regional Chief Ghislain Picard said he was extremely disappointed that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not attend the aboriginal forum in Mashteuiatsh today because forum organizers had scheduled a workshop about social housing on reserves, an issue that falls exclusively under the federal government's jurisdiction. 
Can the minister explain why he did not attend the workshop given that, according to Chief Picard, Quebec reserves alone need over 10,000 housing units?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been involved since the beginning of this conference as a co-sponsor and we have had a very large contingent of our ministers there, including the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry. 
It should be pointed out that even though this was in fact offered to opposition MPs, including the members for Winnipeg South Centre, Nanaimo—Cowichan and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, none of them came.
Clearly our government has been involved in Quebec, especially in relation to aboriginal affairs, and will continue to be.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the government is not offering aboriginal peoples any new money. Chief Picard is not at all impressed by the announcement of $28 million for health, which he says is just window dressing. The government should not be cutting smoking cessation programs for aboriginals. Instead, it should be investing new money to improve health, housing and sanitation on reserves. What is it waiting for?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, our government has moved forward with one of the largest investments in the Department of Indian Affairs that we have seen in many years. In fact, we have brought forward $300 million in new housing announcements for northern communities and $300 million for off reserve housing as well.
Unfortunately, over the last 13 years we saw very little from the previous Liberal government, but, thankfully, our new minister is acting with real money and real dollars.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec grain sector remains mired in one of the worst income crises ever. For several years now, farm bill subsidies to American producers have depressed grain prices on the North American market. Current income support programs are not working, are needlessly expensive, and the government does not have a long-term vision.
Quebec and Ontario grain producers are at the interprovincial border at this very moment, protesting the federal government's inertia. When will we have a true income support program that is flexible and meets their needs?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
We are aware of the problems of Quebec and Ontario farmers. At present our programs have already provided several millions of dollars to these producers and we will continue to listen to them.
André Bellavance: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there will continue to be many demonstrations.
Quebec received on average only 6.8% of the total paid out by Agriculture Canada under its three main income support programs in 2006. The Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec has met with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, his representatives told us that the minister had nothing new to offer. 
Has the government abandoned grain producers? If not, when will it do something? 
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
To date Quebec producers have received $135 million. By year-end more than $300 million will have been put in the hands of our producers, and that is what our government can do.
The Bloc Québécois will never, ever, be able to establish a program to help Quebec producers.
Challenger Jet UseHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the President of the Treasury Board misled the House when he claimed that Derek Burney and Ian Brodie had paid their own expenses for a Challenger joyride to Washington.
Now we learn of another joyride by unknown persons to Halifax for an event dedicated to former Conservative premier John Hamm. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why the Conservative Party is only now reimbursing taxpayers for the flight and why the passenger manifest was blacked out?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I know the member was a cabinet minister, but he has forgotten all the rules. First of all, every 30 to 60 days there is an automatic disclosure of all Challenger manifests available to anyone at the ATI reading room here in Ottawa. Second, when the Prime Minister travels, he obviously has to travel on a secure government aircraft. Third, when he travels for non-government business, it is reimbursed.
 In this case, it was party related business and, unlike the Liberals, we did not bill the taxpayers for that. We reimbursed the government. When that happens, according to long-standing DND practice, they sever the manifest. That is DND's long-standing policy, as it was under the Liberals.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, has the government secretly changed Treasury Board guidelines? Is it now possible for members of this House, for example, to pick up the phone, call over to DND and book the Challenger with the assurance that the party will pick up the tab?
The government needs to account for these breaches and it needs to end these offensive practices now. Would the government release the passenger manifest for this trip so Canadians can know which government members are playing limbo when it comes to meeting any kind of ethical bar?
Jason Kenney: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, Liberals lecturing about ethical bars. They have spent a little too long at that bar.
The Prime Minister flew to Halifax. He was required to do so, according to security regulations, on the government aircraft. He went there for reasons other than government business. That is why the Conservative Party fully reimbursed the taxpayer.
When there is a reimbursement, DND excerpts the passenger manifest. All of this information is publicly available. No rules have been changed. All the rules have been followed.
We are setting an example. It would be nice if the Liberals would acknowledge that.
Ministerial ExpensesHon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec  tried to justify hiring Normand Forest as his senior policy adviser. I would remind the House that Mr. Forest was given a contract worth $24,000 for 24 days of work. 
The minister went further yesterday, even raising a point of order to indicate that a proper contract had been signed before the hiring and that everything was made public on the website. 
I consulted the website. It indicates that Normand Forest Communication received $1,000 a day between March 7 and March 31, 2006, but that Normand Forest was hired on March 14, 2006—I repeat, March 14, 2006.
What is this trick with the bonus? What is the minister trying to hide from us?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to hide. When the member raised this question yesterday, the Minister of Labour promised to shed some light on the matter. He is in Quebec today to make an important announcement. I therefore ask the hon. member to wait until the minister returns to this House next week. He will give the House an update on this matter at that time.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, let us try this in English, then. The Minister of Labour  yesterday confirmed that his senior policy adviser, Normand Forest, got a contract for $24,000 for 24 days of work, quite a bonus, but he said also that Mr. Forest was hired in his office at the end of the contract. He said this yesterday and said that everything was on the website.
When we consult the website we see that it says Normand Forest Communications received $1,000 a day between March 7 and March 31, but that Normand Forest was hired on March 14, 2006. What was Forest doing while he was double-dipping?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not say what the member has just suggested. What the minister did say is that he will look into this matter, as I understand he is currently doing, and report back to the House as soon as he has all of the information and all the details. While he is doing so, perhaps the member for Bourassa could tell us what he was doing at the Groupe Everest condo.
Government ProgramsMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is day 128 of the Liberal Senate's delaying tactics. 
Unelected and unaccountable Liberal Senators have taken the teeth out of the accountability act through amendments. They have allowed big money to creep back into politics. They have allowed the private interests of the Liberal Party to take precedence over the public interests of Canadians. They have increased government secrecy by limiting the reach of access to information legislation, which the Conservative Party has opened greatly.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell this House why he thinks the Liberal Party is so afraid of accountability?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, not one of the government amendments to the bill in the Senate weakened the bill, but I share the disappointment of the member opposite with respect to the actions of the unelected Liberal Senate. It wants to increase the role of big money in politics. We want more openness and we want to reduce it. 
The unelected Liberal Senate wants to, for the first time in Canadian history, reduce the number of organizations covered by access to information. We want to increase the number of organizations covered by access to information. What we see by the actions of the unelected Liberal Senate is that problematically the Liberal Party--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
Veterans AffairsPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about accountability.
 In October of last year a letter was written on behalf of the present Prime Minister to Joyce Carter of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. It states that “a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans” regardless of time of death.
My question is quite simple. When are these widows going to see the VIP extension?
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the things the new minister did as soon as he was appointed was to make certain that there was an inquiry and a review done on comprehensive health care. That is under way as we speak.
While this review is being completed, the government has already allocated an extra $352 million for Veterans Affairs this year, more than the Liberals did last year. This new funding includes $250 million for enhanced benefits and services to veterans.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple question.
 Harold Shea of Halifax, an 83 year old war veteran, died the other day. We lose approximately 24,000 second world war and Korean war veterans every year in this country. They want to make sure, before they pass on, that their spouses are well taken care of by that government or any government.
Once again, this was a promise by the Prime Minister to a woman in Cape Breton who is representing thousands of widows in this country. This being Veterans Week, when will the government honour its promise and extend the veterans independence program to all widows of all veterans in this country?
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to take a backseat to this member or any other member of the House when it comes to veterans issues. I have been fighting strongly for veterans for many, many years. The minister feels very strongly toward veterans. The Prime Minister has made it very clear how he feels about veterans.
We are moving as quickly as we can. I would ask for the cooperation of the opposition members in putting together a bill of rights and an ombudsman so that these kinds of issues can be addressed very, very quickly, without delay.
HomelessnessMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the federal government is ignoring Canada's homeless. To date, the Minister of Human Resources has refused to indicate if the supporting communities partnership initiative for the homeless will be extended.
Does the minister think that if she says it is being reviewed long enough the homelessness problem will just disappear?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the homeless is very important to the government. That is why one of our earliest actions was to renew the SCPI program, with $135 million, and in August we made available $37 million more.
After seven years of no changes in that program, we think we must review it and look for opportunities to improve it so that we can make it even better and more responsive.
That is $135 million for SCPI and that is not peanuts.
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will not accept that the SCPI program is wasteful or inefficient, as the minister said.
Earlier this year, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities told the finance committee that SCPI has been particularly effective in combating homelessness and asked that it be extended for five years. Despite a $13 billion surplus, the Conservative government would not extend the SCPI program. 
There are approximately 150,000 homeless people in Canada every year. Will the minister stop making excuses and extend the program today?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, as we have seen with so many programs that were put in place by the previous government, they need to be reviewed. We owe that to Canadian taxpayers.
There was a former Liberal minister of CMHC who said that improvements needed to be made. We are going to deliver programs for the homeless at least as good as SCPI, and I hope better.
Citizenship and ImmigrationYasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has failed to announce its plan for an estimated 200,000 undocumented workers in Canada and it refuses to grant them amnesty. Instead of addressing how to use the immigration system to better benefit the Canadian economy, the government is clueless.
Will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain why he continues to ignore the plight of those workers? Why is he throwing them out and slamming the door?
Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous sympathy for anyone who wants to come to Canada for a better life. This is a great country, but I think it is only right that people who want to get here come here legally. We already have 800,000 people waiting in line to come here legally.
Here is the real question. If the member cares so much for immigrants, why did she vote against the $307 million in new settlement funding that we announced in the budget?
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer shows he is totally clueless. These workers bolster the Canadian economy. In addition, many of them have children who are Canadian-born and have a legal right to remain in Canada. 
This is an urgent issue. The minister has the ability to act on behalf of these families. Will he now recognize the complexities of this issue and ensure that the families of Canadian-born children remain in Canada? Or is he going to throw Canadian citizens out of the country?
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's new-found interest in undocumented workers, but I point out that when the Liberals were on the government side, they deported over 100,000 undocumented people in a very few years.
 I think it is time for the former government to own up to its failure on all kinds of immigration issues, including its failure to provide settlement funding, something that we announced in the budget.
 The Liberals froze settlement funding and penalized immigrants. We have provided $307 million in new funding because we care about newcomers.
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the measures put in place by the government on May 11 to help female immigrants who are victims of abuse, Amnesty International still denounces the working conditions of domestic helpers, who are quite simply being treated like slaves. 
In 2003, the United Nations adopted a convention to ensure better protection for all migrant workers. What is Canada waiting for to sign it?
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, we have great concern for migrant workers, workers of all kinds. We have rules in place regarding labour conditions and we work with the provinces to ensure that those standards are met.
Whenever that is in question, I of course urge the provinces to move very quickly to address these issues. I point out, by the way, that Quebec is a leader in ensuring that labour standards are met when it comes to migrant workers.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, according to the newspapers, the Conservative government does not intend to regularize the status of illegal immigrant workers employed in construction, for example, across Canada. This decision is even harder to understand when we know that there is such a severe labour shortage.
Will the government acknowledge that one of the best ways to protect these workers from possible abuse would be to regularize their status to get them out of the black market?
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue and I have tremendous sympathy for people who want to come to Canada. We are looking for ways to make it easier for tradespeople and people who do not necessarily have a university degree to come here. 
In fact, we have raised the number of temporary workers who come here quite dramatically. We are going to do more on that file, but we are not going to allow people to jump the queue and get ahead of the 800,000 people who are trying to come here by regular means. That is not the Canadian way. We have to be fair to people who are trying to get here legally.
Government ProgramsHon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 26, the President of the Treasury Board said in this House that the court challenges program was a waste. Does he think it was a waste for Gisèle Lalonde to make the effort to save the Montfort Hospital from the provincial government, or for the Société franco-manitobaine to stand up for its rights and get its own school board, rights that had been denied for over 80 years? Yesterday the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne announced it was going to the Federal Court to have the government's decision reversed.
Is it not a real waste to pay lawyers to defend this horrible decision in court?
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know about the concerns expressed by the official language minority communities. Since this is a matter before the courts, it is inappropriate for us to comment further on this case. 
However, let us never forget that this government continues to give unwavering support to La Francophonie and to this country's official languages.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, hon. Liberal and NDP members say they are so concerned about aboriginal communities. I wonder why they did not go to Mashteuiatsh. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development even offered to pay for the opposition MPs to go to the forum, but they did not show up. Shame on them.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development give us the real facts on how Canada's new government is contributing and improving the quality of live of all aboriginal communities?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the opposition, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development along with the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, as well as other members of our Quebec caucus were in fact there and will continue to be present for aboriginal people in Quebec.
At the forum the minister announced $3.8 million for the University of Quebec, nearly $.75 million for the First Nations Education Council. Health Canada put aside $16.2 million. I could go on, but the point is that Canada's new government is there and the opposition is not.
Public Service of CanadaMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Halloween is coming and my kids are working on their costumes. My kids at least will not follow the example of the former Liberal government and create phantom jobs for themselves.
The Public Service Commission has alerted the Conservative government to the blurring of the line between public service and politics, citing the creation of jobs that do not exist. It is time to seal the cracks. 
More than 100 bureaucrats who over the past 11 years worked as ministerial aides have slithered back into the bureaucracy. Will the minister confirm no current ministerial staff will do the same?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell the member that no current Conservative ministerial staffers can do this, but I cannot tell him that former Liberal staffers are still not entitled to this right. 
The reason is that this privileged political access of Liberal elites being able to sneak inside our non-partisan bureaucracy is still on the statute books today. We want to get rid of it. We want to ban that practice in the federal accountability act. While the unelected Liberal Senate dithers, this practice unfortunately still goes on.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be confident that this will not happen again. There is still two way traffic. These are exactly the conditions that spawned the sponsorship scandal, yet the government has not acted on this specific issue. 
The public service must be apolitical. Staff cannot shift into and out of political jobs. Public servants moving to minister's staff must resign first. They must follow the same rules as rank and file public servants. Will the government commit to plugging this obvious gaping loophole that presently exists and change the present legislation?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to look at that. I am told, unfortunately, it does not fall within the scope of the federal accountability act. This Liberal scandal was just brought to our attention.
We learned that after Justice Gomery completed his work, after Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Dingwall and Mr. Gagliano were fired, and after Canadians had relieved the Liberals from power, the Liberals took one last attempt to politicize our bureaucracy and help create phantom jobs that did not exist. This experience has been --
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for London West.
LiteracyHon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is galling to most Canadians that despite being awash in money, this meanspirited minority government has axed $17 million in funding to help people who want to learn how to read and write.
In an astonishing display of ignorance, the Senate leader of the government, the Prime Minister's confidante, recently said, “this is not an issue that is receiving much attention from people out there”.
 Have any of the government members or senators bothered to meet their constituents and read their correspondence? Is this another case of government members ignoring what they do not like and acting in shortsighted ignorance?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, when Canadians elected us, they wanted a change from the old Liberal government. They wanted a government that was going to be accountable for how well their tax dollars were spent.
That is why we have identified programs that just were not meeting the needs of the literacy groups, programs that were not helping to reduce illiteracy across this country. That is why we are refocusing our energies and refocusing our dollars in order to help improve the literacy situation while respecting taxpayers' money.
JusticeMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of our five election priorities was to get tough on crime. Following through on our promise, our Minister of Justice has brought forward a number of bills to toughen up Canada's anti-crime legislation. 
Can the government House leader please update the House on what he is doing to move forward on this important aspect of the government's agenda?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the things we made clear to Canadians in the last election was that we wanted to get tough on those individuals who committed serious crimes. This is why the justice minister has introduced 11 pieces of legislation.
On Tuesday, the official opposition indicated that it was preparing to slow down all government business. By Thursday, it said it was prepared to pass six justice pieces of legislation.
 I can speculate how this conversion came about, but I put together a draft motion. We want the input of course from the other two political parties here. I will be returning to the House and see if everybody will make good on these promises. This is an opportunity for this House to work together and make this minority Parliament work.
Citizenship and ImmigrationOlivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, undocumented workers and their families live in fear today because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has failed to act.
It seems the minister has three choices: he could follow the Liberal lead and just turn a blind eye to the exploitation of these workers, he could order a massive witch hunt and deport 200,000 hard-working tax paying people, or he could just do his job and find a solution.
What is the minister planning to do?
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are working hard to find some solutions for all newcomers. Canada is a great country and a lot of people want to come here. 
However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that these people are here illegally. That is what we cannot turn a blind eye to. Canadians are fair. They want people to come here, but they also want them to play by the rules. We are going to find a way for everyone to get here who have all kinds of skills because we need that, but they are going to come here legally.
Canada PostMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's mail sorting facility on the Lachine Canal is to be sold privately for some $25 million, but local elected officials, the Société du Havre, the FTQ, the CSN and the mayor of Montreal all support the project developed by local stakeholders. Yesterday, hundreds of citizens rallied in support of the project. The Conservative government is the only party that does not seem to care.
When will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities intervene in support of this unifying initiative? It is time to end these false pretenses and do something positive for Montreal. 
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this land was actually offered to Canada Lands in a first right of refusal and Canada Lands did not take the offer that it had available to it. As a result, it has been offered to the highest bidder and that sale is apparently going to go through.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: This brings the Friday question period to an end.
The hon. member for Wascana is rising on a point of order.
Business of the HouseRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in light of what the government House leader said just a few moments ago, I wonder if you could see if there is unanimous consent in the House at this moment for the following motion: That Bill C-9 be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed; that Bills C-18, C-19 and C-23 be deemed to have been reported from committee, without amendments, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed; and that Bills,C-22 and C-26 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendments, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is totally unfair to the other political parties in the House for the member to come forward with this. They are not the government. Despite what is happening in the Senate, the Liberal Party does not govern the country.
I have circulated a draft motion and I want to have the input of the members of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. It is only fair that they have a chance to look at this. When they have had an opportunity to properly consider it, we will get back to the House.
That is the way parliaments work. To unilaterally go ahead, at the expense of those two political parties that have had no opportunity to look at this, is completely unfair.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, we just saw this motion a few minutes ago and consider it completely inappropriate that the Liberal Party would attempt to do this.
We know there needs to be discussion on these bills and we are prepared to do that. To bring it forward in this manner, when there has not been discussion among the critics or among the House leaders, is why we denied unanimous consent.
We are prepared to talk about it, but not when it is done in this manner.
Point of OrderPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, during question period, I referred to a letter that was written on behalf of the now Prime Minister in response to a letter from an individual named Joyce Carter. For the benefit of my colleagues in the Conservative, Liberal and Bloc Québécois parties, I would like to table these documents so they can have access to and read what the Conservatives' leader said. 
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
Committees of the HouseAlan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first and second reports of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources relating to motions in the name of the member for Etobicoke North. The two motions are self-explanatory.
First, the committee regrets that the government rejected the advice of departmental officials to continue and renew the EnerGuide for houses program. It calls upon the Minister of Natural Resources to reinstate this program.
The second motion, which is the body of the report, is that the committee recognizes that the freezing of the wind power production incentive program has thrown the industry into disarray and put at risk jobs and future investment. It calls upon the Minister of Natural Resources to immediately reinstate full funding for the wind power production incentive program.
Canada Post Corporation ActThierry St-Cyr:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-372, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (property).
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to introduce Bill C-372, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (property), which will force the Canada Post Corporation to follow the same procedure as the departments when disposing of surplus assets. The reason for this is clear: to prevent the kind of transactions that the Canada Post Corporation is trying to carry out in my riding by selling property to a private company.
I would ask the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to give parliamentarians the opportunity to debate this issue before authorizing any transaction involving the mail sorting facility on the Lachine Canal.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseHon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That: 
 in order to gain a better understanding of the service and care provided to Canadian veterans, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Montreal and Ottawa, to visit hospital facilities, on November 20, 2006, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee; 
 in relation to its study on refugee issues, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to Kingston, Ontario, on October 30 and 31, 2006, and that the necessary staff do accompany that committee; 
 twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to Montreal, from November 22 to 25, 2006, to attend the fall consultation of the Canadian Council for Refugees, and that the necessary staff do accompany that committee; 
 in relation to its study on the vitality of official language minority communities, seven (7) members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and St. Boniface, between December 4 and 8, 2006, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee; 
 and 
 in relation to its study on the oil sands, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to travel to Calgary and Fort McMurray, Alberta on November 19 and 20, 2006 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee. 
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Orders I am pleased to present a petition to the House from many hundreds of residents of British Columbia.
The petitioners are very concerned about the issue of same sex marriage. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reopen the issue of marriage in this Parliament and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I have two petitions with the same theme, both from many hundreds of residents of the province of British Columbia. I am pleased to present these, and I support their point of view.
Raymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table three petitions today. 
My first petition has over 100 names from constituents in my riding of Saint Boniface, encouraging Parliament to take measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Raymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is with regard to violence against indigenous women. Many of my constituents signed this petition, which indicates that government statistics show that young indigenous women in Canada are five times more likely than all other women to die as a result of violence, yet government studies, recommending concrete measures to improve the lives of indigenous women, gather dust on the shelves.
The petitioners ask for action on this file.
Raymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, my third petition contains the names of over 50 constituents. 
The petitioners ask Parliament to reopen the debate on the definition of marriage in order to restore respect for traditional marriage.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners from the province of Ontario. 
 The petitioners ask Parliament to reopen the issue of marriage and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I table a petition on behalf of citizens who call upon the Government of Canada to cancel negotiations for a free trade agreement with Korea. 
The petitioners believe it will worsen the one-way flood of automotive products into our market. They ask that a new automotive trade policy be developed, which would require Korea and offshore markets to purchase equivalent volumes of finished vehicles and auto parts from North America as a condition of other continued access to our market.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is my deep honour to present the following petition on behalf of constituents of my hometown of Fort St. John and the surrounding communities of Charlie Lake, Cecil Lake and some rural residents around there.
The petitioners believe that marriage should be defined as the lifelong union between one man and one woman. They believe that is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. They also note that the definition of marriage has recently been changed by the courts. They believe it is an exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage
 Therefore, they call upon Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of Canadian citizens who draw attention to the 240 forced labour camp in the People's Republic of China, to the brutal persecution and the harvesting and selling of organs by that regime, to the finding of matching organs in as short as one or two day and to the kidnapping and illegal detention of Falun Gong practitioners and organs that were missing from the bodies of practitioners who were tortured to death.
The petitioners call for an opening of those facilities in the People's Republic of China, for an international investigation and for the release of the illegally imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, today I received yet another letter from an organization that has been axed to death by the minority con government, the summer work student exchange program. One would think that summer employment for students would be as high a priority for the government as it has been for the past 12 years. 
In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, as it is with many similar ridings that have medium sized cities along with many smaller communities, we have been hit hard by the cuts to the students, student summer work, literacy, the environment, wind energy, agriculture, economic development, minority groups, volunteers, aboriginals, tourism and heritage.
Let me be clear. It is a very good thing that the government has listened to people and has restored funding to museums. There are several museums from Thunder Bay on Lake Superior to communities such as Chapple near the Manitoba border. Oliver Paipoonge, Hymers, Founders, the Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame, Atikoken and Fort Frances are some of the communities that have plans that would have been hurt by the incompetence of those cuts.
Just last week in Fort Frances, when I spoke at a dinner in appreciation of those of Ukrainian heritage, many of those citizens reminded me that it was the NDP that supported the Conservatives. The people of northwestern Ontario also blame the NDP for the jobs lost and plants closed because the Liberal forestry package of $1.4 billion was not implemented. The NDP now talks about the forest industry but everybody who works in that sector knows that it was the NDP that stabbed them in the heart.
It is probably easier to list the damage that this unholy alliance has caused. 
First, these include cuts to literacy, when more money is needed, and the Prime Minister's wife asked for money the day after $18 million was slashed from the budget, amazingly harpercritical.
Second, the lowering of every old age security cheque because the Conservatives raised taxes for the poorest in the nation.
Third, the elimination of the visitors' GST rebate is yet another blow to tourism in northwestern Ontario and, indeed, all of Canada will suffer.
Fourth, the damage to community and household environmental groups such as EnerGuide. I can only restate and reiterate my call for the reinstatement of this program. I truly hope the Minister of the Environment is listening to Canadians at the field level, in the communities and in their households who know this program was working so well.
Fifth, the court challenges program helped the disabled and other minorities and now, as a source of dissent, it has been snuffed out.
Sixth, the chainsaw massacre of FedNor's budget by $6.4 million is yet another example of the NDP-Conservative alliance hurting northern Ontario. This part of the nationwide maliciousness of $40 million lost to regional development will hurt our economy in all parts of the country.
Seventh, the leaders of my urban aboriginal communities and those of the 11 first nations I represent are also outraged by the abandonment of the Kelowna accord.
Eighth, the students of Lakehead University and Confederation College are furious at the spiteful way in which the student jobs, which are so vital to the furthering of their education, have been butchered.
Ninth, is another letter, this time from the Fort Francis Volunteer Bureau, stunned by the words of the Conservative government that volunteerism is “not a priority for Canadians”. That is a quote directly from their letter. I believe that everybody shares my amazement at the disregard and disdain for volunteerism shown by the government.
Tenth, northwestern Ontario lost 400 early learning and child care spaces thanks to the loss of the program. For us, for those communities throughout the north, it affects us dramatically. It may not seem like a lot to some people, but for a community to lose 25 or 30 spaces where there were only 35 or 40, it makes a horrendous difference in terms of parents being able to go to work and actually help the local economies.
Eleventh, for the record I believe the people of Canada were astounded that the NDP members again supported the Conservatives when they voted against our motion that would have restored support to those groups and organizations that are out there helping Canadians on a daily basis.
The motion stated:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government inherited the best economic and fiscal position of any incoming federal government and has not demonstrated the need, value or wisdom of its announced expenditure cuts which unfairly disadvantage the most vulnerable groups in Canadian society. 
That is what happens to an organization such as a literacy group in a small community. A cut of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 may seem small but in many of these situations each and every one of those groups, whether it is environmental literacy or just plain trying to help their community in volunteerism, that amount of money pulled out of the equation is carnage. It hurts organizations and in fact kills them because they cannot leverage additional funds. It may mean the loss of a part time person but more often than not it will actually end the organization's ability to get funding from the provincial government, private sectors or others. It is the abandonment of federal commitments to people who need it. 
This is what is really disturbing. Things work in small communities. As I travel through my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, which has 11 first nations and 16 municipalities, and that is just one riding in northern Ontario and one of dozens in the nation across this country, each time one of those cuts hits someone, something collapses. Something is withdrawn from the community and someone is hurt, which means that those people who were helping can no longer help the many people they were helping.
Let us look at the letter from the Fort Frances Volunteer Bureau which recognized the tremendous assets that volunteers provide. In most communities in the nation, volunteers are the wheels that keep our country going. Indeed, in communities such as that, that douses the flames of community spirit.
I would use the community of Atikokan as an example. It came fifth out of several hundred, if not thousands, of Canadian communities that applied to be Hockeyville. The volunteerism and spirit that I saw there was absolutely amazing and inspiring. Indeed, that happens in every community all across this country every hour of every day.
We have great people who believe in the future and who give of themselves. Whether it is in a museum or helping people learn to read and write, it is a fundamental aspect of our society. For me literacy has long been an issue that is dear to my heart. 
Organizations tell me that they need more money. They say that they do not need lot, that they just need enough to keep going so they can give people the tools they need to relate to others, to read and write and to participate fully in society. When $17 million or $18 million is taken out of one program like that and the money is divided into a few thousand dollars across the country, we see the difference. We see these little things implode. People wonder why the government is no longer caring about them and helping them. They thought the purpose of government was to give them assistance when they needed it. They do not ask for much.
People should see the facilities out of which many of these organizations operate. They are not on the 17th floor on Bay Street. They scrounge telephones, fax machines and use computers that are years old. They do what they must do because they believe in helping others.
We had a chance to do something but the vote was lost in the House of Commons. I am only encouraged by the fact that the government has at least recognized the museum component of it because many small projects across the country would have been devastated. Can we have EnerGuide back? Can we have literacy back? I believe those are the things that Canadians all over the country are not only asking for but are demanding.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I felt that I had to challenge the veracity of some of the comments made by my colleague.
In the introduction to my colleague's speech, he would have members believe that the reason he and his party were thrown out of office, still picking the feathers off their butt from being tarred and feathered and run out on a rail, was because the NDP kicked them out. For the record, it was actually the people of Canada who kicked them out. The reason they are now isolated in their shame and the reason they are sitting way over there isolated is because the people of Canada were well aware that they broke faith with the Canadian people. They lost their confidence and therefore they lost their jobs.
My colleague is living in some kind of state of denial if he thinks it was the NDP that kicked them out of office. In actual fact, the NDP members are doing their job as opposition MPs and criticizing the budget we are debating today, the budget implementation act. We oppose the bill and the budget and we are speaking against it in a constructive way.
Would my colleague not agree that if there were any opposition party on which we should be casting any blame, it would be the Bloc Québécois because five minutes after the budget was tabled in the House of Commons, the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked out of these chambers, stepped in front of a TV camera and said that he liked it and that he would vote for it? At that very moment all negotiations ended because in a minority Parliament the opposition parties could effect some fairly constructive positive changes if one of them did not bail out on the rest of us. 
Would he not agree that if there is any choleric to be vented at this stage of the implementation of the budget, it should be directed toward the Bloc Québécois and its rampant self-interest?
[Interjection]
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member is concerned about seating arrangements or whatever. I do not know where he is but he is that far that he is almost out the door.
Let us just clarify where we are. It is clear that the $1.4 billion forestry package that would have saved hundreds and thousands of jobs in this nation, because of the loan guarantees portion of it, the plant modernization component and the environmental support, was lost to all those workers who are now unemployed because the NDP joined with the Conservatives. 
Let us be very clear that the early learning and child care program was adopted by all provinces and territories and already had money transferred to them. I will give a concrete example of what is happening in a municipality like Thunder Bay. The provincial money was transferred and is being used over four years, but after those three or four years are up, then the municipalities will all have to raise taxes because early learning and child care will need to be supported by municipalities again. That was done on a community wide basis across this country. The money was there.
When we talk about all these things, none of it would have occurred had there not been collaboration. Could the NDP not have waited for the election to be held after these things were up and running? That is a fair question.
Roger Valley: Mr. Speaker, I do need to make a comment for my colleague from the NDP.
It clearly was the NDP that stabbed us in the back, stabbed all forestry workers in the back and stabbed the child care workers in the back by siding with the Conservatives when we had plans to protect those jobs. We need to be clear about that.
My colleague and I both serve small municipalities in rural settings. When he travels to his municipality what does he hear the people saying about the absolute gall of the Conservatives when they announced the $1 billion cuts that affect those small communities on the same day that they take credit for a $13.2 billion surplus from the former Liberal government with its good fiscal planning and good management? I want to hear what my colleague has to say and what the people on the streets are saying about the gall of the Conservatives.
[Interjection]
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, they can see through the scam. They know they are being hoaxed. They know it is deception. They know it is smog and mirrors. They know all of these things are falsehoods being perpetrated, especially when the seniors come in with their old age security cheques and wonder why they are smaller than they were when the Liberals were in power. I say they can also blame the NDP for that.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.
 First of all, I would just like to respond to the comments made by the Liberal members across the way. It really astounds us every time we hear Liberals get up and blame the NDP for their own downfall. They conveniently forget that we had an election and it was the people of Canada, it was the voters in this country, who voted them out because of their arrogance, their corruption, and this sense of entitlement that they have, that they are somehow entitled to power no matter what happens. 
It is unbelievable and even after an election, even after the Canadian people have spoken, we still hear this kind of rhetoric coming out of Liberal members. I guess they just do not get it. As the member for Winnipeg Centre says, I guess they just do not get it and they should be in therapy. It will be a long therapy session, but they have some lessons to learn.
Mr. Gerry Ritz:  They'd want the taxpayers to pay for it.
Libby Davies:  No, we will not have the taxpayers pay for it, they can pay for it out of the Liberal Party.
In regard to this budget, the NDP voted against the Conservative budget. We think it was a very poor budget. It was a missed opportunity particularly now that we know there was a $13 billion surplus that could have provided a major reinvestment into some critical programs in Canada that would help Canadians in their daily lives.
I represent Vancouver East. I represent a very low income community. A few days ago squatters moved into a low income housing building in the downtown east side. Hundreds of people have been evicted from what we call single room occupancies in that community. Why is that happening? It is because we have not had a federal housing strategy. 
Even though the NDP fought so hard and actually did get money into the last federal budget, Bill C-48, that money has actually not been transferred through to the people who really need it. The same is true for post-secondary education.
 When we look at this Conservative budget, we have to ask a very important question, who gains and who loses? Who wins with this budget? We know that the Conservative government has a multi-year plan for corporate tax cuts. Clearly, there are some winners there, but there is no multi-year commitment for child care, education, training, the environment or housing. 
 I see people in my community who are really hurting and have a tough time getting by day by day. They are literally destitute on the streets. They get whammed by Gordon Campbell on the one hand because it is now almost impossible to qualify for basic income assistance. They get hit over the head with that or if they are able to get on income assistance, a single person lives on $500 a month, and I defy anybody to try and make it on that. 
They get hit on that side, but then they get hit on the federal side as well because we have seen an abandonment of a federal responsibility for the provision of housing. I have to say to be clear on the record, it began with the Liberals back in 1993 when the member for LaSalle—Émard was finance minister. He trashed Canada's wonderful social housing programs, trashed the co-op housing programs, and there was no more federal funding. Then we began this horrible downward spiral of more and more people being caught in the travesty of losing their homes, not being able to rent affordable homes or apartments because none were available and the housing squeeze was on. 
That has now taken place for more than a decade and we are seeing the consequences of that deliberate public policy brought on by 13 years of Liberal government and now continued on by a Conservative government. We see the impact on our streets. I see that every day in my community and it breaks my heart when I see people who are valiantly struggling to keep going. Yet, here in Ottawa, these mammoth decisions are being made that basically cut millions of people out of the picture and say they do not count, they are not important.
This summer we had a serious situation. We were very concerned that the SCPI program, the funds that it earmarked for emergency housing were about to be lost. Our very wonderful housing critic went to work. She drew this to the attention of the public and we actually had the federal minister for HRSD, who is responsible for housing, to make comments in the media that those funds were secure.
We found last week on the Treasury Board website that there are incredibly significant cuts to the SCPI program, something like 98% of the funds look as though they are gone in the next fiscal year despite what the President of Treasury Board said in the House, that SCPI would continue.
I get phone calls and emails continually from people who rely on those funds in the absence of a national housing program. They rely on those emergency funds to provide very basic frontline services, emergency provisions and shelter services. Winter is coming upon us. The out of the cold program will yet again be in jeopardy because of the lack of certainty and security about that program. We are very worried about that. This is real stuff that hits people.
I know that other members of the House have raised other questions. Part of the cuts that we just saw recently was to the very popular summer student career program. In my community, not only is it a very good vehicle for ensuring that students can have good jobs during the summer to gain experience, to help them make a little bit of money for tuition, but it is also a very valuable program for local organizations.
In my riding groups like Safe Kids, the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House, and the Strathcona Community Centre rely on the summer student career program to provide very important children's programs during the summer. These are often children who are at risk. Their parents are at work. They are young children. Child care is not accessible or after school care is very expensive, again because the government has not bothered to put in a national child care program.
Programs like Safe Kids, that are supported through the summer student career program, are now again in jeopardy because we understand from the Treasury Board cuts that they are being re-engineered. In fact, the minister said in the House that the money was going to corporations that will hire people anyway and so the government will retarget it. 
In a place like east Vancouver where we depend upon these jobs to help young people and kids who are at risk, we need to know that the money is going to be there. Even the money we had was totally inadequate and I was always going to the government to ask if there were additional funds and saying that we wanted to see them in our community. It is money that is being very well spent. It goes directly to support students and it helps the local community.
It really causes me a lot of dismay to see these kinds of cuts take place. It is the same with the Status of Women. We see that the mandate of the Status of Women department has changed. It no longer uses the word equality. Lobbying and being an advocate is no longer allowed. Come on, what will be left? There will be nothing left to women's equality
It seems to me that if the government, as it claims, was interested in efficiencies, as it says, that is fine. It should find those efficiencies, but then re-invest the funds into the programs that need them. That would be sound fiscal management and sound public policy. What it chose to do instead was announce the cuts under the cover of efficiency and basically hurt the most vulnerable people in our society.
For those reasons and for many more, we are not supporting the budget. We believe in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. We believe in paying down the debt but also re-investing in basic essentials that produce a quality of life for Canadians that I think people value, expect and see as very important in the country. 
Unfortunately, the government has taken us down a different path, one that benefits wealthy individuals and corporations, and leaves behind the most vulnerable in our society. We do not support the budget for that reason.
Roger Valley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for recognizing that the $13 billion surplus that we had in no way should have led to the billion dollar cuts to a lot of the services that were mentioned.
The member mentioned many of the actions taken by the Liberal government back in 1993 when the Liberals threw the Conservatives out of power. She forgot to mention that the Liberals had to deal with a huge debt. They had to deal with nine years of mismanagement by the Conservative government. They had to deal with a country that was almost bankrupt. So, at that time, there were tough decisions that had to be made. Looking back, were all of them right? We do not know. Things change.
She said that the Canadian public judges on election day, and we accept that. We returned with 102 seats. That is four times what the NDP have. 
I have a number of questions for the member. How does she face the forestry workers? How does she face them when thousands of jobs have been lost in my riding, right across northern Ontario in fact, and in Canada? When the NDP sided with the Conservatives to cause the election, thousands of people lost their jobs. There was $1.4 billion lined up to help forestry workers right across Canada. How does she justify that?
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this idea that tough decisions were made by the Liberals back in the early nineties and that we all had to tighten our belts is a fabrication. The record shows that Canadians who paid for those decisions were the poorest of Canadians, the most vulnerable. They were hit the hardest. 
Let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that gave $100 billion in corporate tax cuts when it was in power. Let us get the message straight.
In terms of the question about how we face resource workers or people in the lumber industry, we do not face them, we stand with them in solidarity. We represent those workers and their interests by pointing out how terrible the softwood lumber agreement is. We demand of the previous government and of this government that we support those communities that have been hit by that agreement. We have done that consistently in this House because we stand with those workers and we will continue to do that.
Bradley Trost: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statements of my colleague from the New Democratic Party and I realized that with the New Democrats we can never spend enough. More, more, more is always their call.
She said that all our tax benefits were for the rich. Cutting the 1% GST helps people with their utilities, gasoline, and all their basic living costs. The thousand dollar income tax credit for pensioners that we have implemented, the thousand dollar tax credit for apprenticeship trades, and the thousand dollar tax credit for workers all across the country, these are not aimed at the rich. They are aimed at working class Canadians.
Why is the New Democratic Party opposed to simple direct tax measures that help working class Canadians? 
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how these narratives roll out. One of them, certainly, from the Conservatives that we have heard many times is that the NDP just wants to spend more, more, more.
Actually, if we did an audit of NDP governments across the country, we would see that they have the strongest record overall of balanced budgets and dealing with debt. 
We have this narrative and the Conservatives cling to it in desperation, but in actual fact the record is very different in terms of fiscal management for the NDP. It is a very good record.
In terms of the other questions that the member put, if we look at this budget, we have to make an assessment overall who were the winners and who were the losers. I would say that ordinary Canadians were the losers. Despite the few little bits and pieces that they might have received overall, they lost out.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on Bill C-28.
I am a member of the finance committee. The committee recently completed a tour. We went from Whitehorse to Vancouver to Fort McMurray to Saskatoon and Portage la Prairie and then out on the east coast to St. John's, Halifax, Quebec City and Toronto. We wound up yesterday afternoon. I think we heard from over 400 witnesses. After a while we got a flavour of what Canadians seem to think about this budget. I have to say that they do not seem to think too much of this budget. In fact, after a while there were patterns that developed in the testimony. 
I would have thought that thee Chamber of Commerce would have been an organization that would instinctively or intuitively support Conservative budgets. That organization had some rather critical things to say about this particular budget. The Chamber of Commerce said:
 We note that Budget 2006 introduced piecemeal personal tax credits for a myriad of items. We believe this only serves to complicate the tax system-- 
And we all know that the Income Tax Act of Canada is a pretty complicated statute to begin with. 
 and relief should be delivered more broadly through rate reduction on increasing the bracket thresholds where the next tax rate is levied. 
 We ask whether the 1% reduction in the Goods and Services Tax rate was the “correct” method to effect a decrease in overall personal tax burdens. Generally, consumption taxes are preferable to income taxes, therefore we recommend reductions to personal income taxes rather than consumption taxes. 
This was from a group that I would respectfully suggest is one of the key supporters of the Conservative Party. 
We turn to the bill before us and we see immediately what it is that these people are talking about. 
The first one is the new Canada employment credit. That sounds like a good idea on the face of it. If a person's income is from something other than employment, for example, a pension, investments, or things of that nature, this tax credit is utterly useless to that person. What is the point? Why would the government do that as opposed to bumping up the personal base exemption or reducing rates generally overall? We want to favour this over that. It speaks to the Chamber of Commerce position that the government has introduced a myriad of tax credits that end up complicating the system way beyond where it needs to be.
There is a textbook tax credit. That is just great. That is just wonderful. A student has 80 bucks worth of tax credits and a $5,000 tuition bill. That is a choice one makes. An $80 tax credit for goodness' sake is going to buy one textbook. That is great. The student can buy the textbook, but he or she cannot get into the school.
Witness after witness would say to the committee that this is lunacy. What people need is better access. That request would come generally from the student groups. They had some good ideas, all of which were ignored in the budget. The university side and the college faculty side want better infrastructure. 
What they are really panicked about, and they should be, is that the various foundations that were funded over 13 years of Liberal government, those funds are not being replenished. As a consequence, the universities are afraid that the brain gain that we have had in the last few years will reverse itself again and become a brain drain. This could happen because there is no money available for the new applications that researchers put in.
Those folks are highly mobile people. They can do their research in California as well as they can do it in Toronto. They can do their research in New York as well as they can do it in Halifax. If we do not keep these foundations well funded with the ability to provide grants to do the leading edge research which has made Canada the number one publicly funded research country in the world, then these folks will find other places in which to do their research. What did the Conservative Party offer? An $80 book credit.
Then we come to public transit passes. That sounds great, but it is going to cost something in the order of about $900 million. It will cost $900 million to, in theory, increase ridership by 5%. That is a pretty expensive increase in ridership, $900 million on an annual basis. That does not build one kilometre of subway in my riding, not one kilometre. It does not even build a station. It does not replace any of the TTC buses in my riding, in the city of Toronto or in the GTA. It does none of that.
That is great; I have my tax credit. I am now going to get a tax deduction after I file my tax return, which has become so complicated that I now have to hire somebody to prepare my return. I am going to hand it in but I am not going to take the bus because the bus has flat tires all the time. These are utterly brilliant choices.
Then there is a credit for trades tool expenses. I kind of like that. What is wrong with that? Folks should be able to deduct their tool expenses. If one really thought about it for more than two minutes, one would say that a deduction for employment expenses should be broadly based because most people do not make their living in the trades. Most people make their living in services. We are becoming a services oriented country, so this particular credit is useless to most people.
The children's fitness tax credit is another one. I play hockey. My kid is a swimmer. I paid literally thousands of dollars annually for my daughter to swim. She is a nationally rated swimmer and now swims with McMaster University. I am going to get that credit. I kind of like that idea. I am happy about that, but my other daughter who dances is not going to get a credit. If any of my other children were participating in artistic endeavours, the credit would not be there.
Witness after witness after witness said that dance should be included, painting should be included and all kinds of other activities should be included. No one is ever going to make everybody happy. That is why it is crazy to try to do this.
I do not know whether you caught this, Mr. Speaker. The report to the Minister of Finance on how to handle this was released. The “Report of the Expert Panel for the Children's Fitness Tax Credit” states:
 Fees for camps that emphasize physical activity theme. 
That sounds simple.
 To qualify, the camp program would need to last at least five consecutive days-- 
--not four--
 --during which at least 50% of the activity during the program hours of each day would involve physical activity. 
I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I send my kids to camp and I am not sure my kids would qualify. The counsellors run the kids from dawn to dusk and make them do all kinds of things, but the activities are not always physical. Sometimes there are activities for painting, sometimes there are activities for learning about the woods and nature and things such as that. Those camps will not qualify.
This is going to be administratively ridiculous. No one is going to be able to keep track. It will place an administrative burden on all of these camps and then there will have to be a huge audit scheme to find out whether in fact a particular camp at a particular time had a five day program which involved physical fitness and physical fitness only.
In conclusion, the way to go is the way the Liberals set out in our November update, which was to raise the basic personal exemption and lower tax rates across the board if we want to do something in the area of tax relief for Canadians. This hodgepodge, mishmash, myriad of tax credits is administratively ridiculous and simply adds to Canadians' burdens rather than detracts from them.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the member to specifically focus for a few moments on the disaster for post-secondary education students. 
He is probably aware that students in Nova Scotia are more hard pressed than any others in the country because of the lowest level of assistance to students and the highest tuition rates. In general, I am wondering if he could speak a bit about the fact that the main impact of these budgetary measures is to increase the debt burden on students as opposed to measures that would really address the debt burden and deal in an effective way with the reduction of post-secondary education expenses.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and it is one on which the finance committee received quite a number of representations. 
To try to summarize it in a one minute response is going to be a bit tricky, but we can basically divide the issue into two. The first issue is access of students, which the hon. member is concerned about, and the second issue is basically the infrastructure, the buildings, the labs, et cetera, when the students get there. Both need to be addressed.
The way in which the government seems to have responded at this stage is an $80 tax credit for books. Well good for them, but it is not going to do anything for improving the quality of our schools. Certainly none of the budget responds to the issue of keeping the research councils well funded so that we keep our best researchers here, and certainly nothing happens for the students.
We heard repeated representations from various student groups. It did not matter whether they were on the east coast, the west coast or somewhere in between; they feel that the government has essentially turned its back on improved access to post-secondary education. 
Bradley Trost: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. It almost seemed for a point there that he was arguing for the Canadian Alliance's old single rate income tax. He was getting to that point.
The hon. member owes it to the House, if he is opposed to all these tax credits, to indicate what he would push for in the next election when his party puts forth its platform. Would the member and his party unequivocally commit to repealing all the tax credits that he has criticized, the tax credit for sports, the tax credit for employees, the tax credit for pensioners, et cetera? Since he is opposed to them, would he be willing to commit that the Liberal Party would definitely repeal all these tax credits should the Liberal Party some day become the government?
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is worried about our getting back into government sooner than he thinks, so in fact we have to be responsible about this issue. Frankly if he had read the November update, he would have almost a complete answer to his question.
The focus of the Liberal Party is to raise the basic personal exemption. The focus of the Liberal Party is to lower the rates at which the thresholds hit and to raise the thresholds themselves. That is broad base tax relief. By getting into a situation of this credit for this person and that credit for that person, all it does is creates a make-work project for a bunch of accountants. It also imposes huge administrative burdens on a variety of people who are in no way able to deal with them.
The answer to his question is that we are in favour of broad base tax relief. Whether it would also include credits, it may well do. The credits would be higher credits an they would be right across the board. The credit would not be just for physical activity. It would have to be activity. If one is going to go down that route, one might as well go the whole way, and the whole way is one has to cover the artists, the musicians, the athletes, pretty well everyone. In which case, one might as well just raise the basic personal exemption and that way everybody benefits.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, a short question.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be short and specific. 
The basic personal exemption as per Revenue Canada's own website actually went down on July 1, 2006. Low income seniors are coming into my office and showing me that their income cheques for this month are $10 less than the ones for June and July. Is the member aware that those guys have actually cut the pay of the lowest income seniors by virtue of this budget?
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, that is my point exactly; it has gone up for everybody, as has the threshold rate, the initial rate. The way the Conservatives are paying for this idiocy is by increasing the tax burden on all of us, but particularly on the most vulnerable, of whom seniors are a component.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are available to me, I very much appreciate the occasion to participate in the debate on the government's budget implementation bill. It will not surprise any of my colleagues here in the House of Commons to know that, like my NDP colleagues, I will not be supporting this flawed, short-sighted and meanspirited bill.
I am proud of the work that my leader and my colleagues have done, both here in the House of Commons and out across the country, to draw attention to the errors and omissions, the missed opportunities and the misplaced priorities of the bill that is before us.
I have heard from a great many people, certainly, from many parts of the country, in relation to the failure of the budget to in any significant way address areas for which my critic responsibilities apply, those of international development and foreign affairs. I do not have the opportunity to speak at length about that today, except to say that the disappointments in the budget as they relate to dealing with domestic issues certainly are matched by the profound sense of disappointment felt by a great many people across this country that we have yet again shown no significant progress in meeting our international obligations to seriously commit to the eradication of poverty and to preventable disease in the very poorest parts of the world. We have a lot of work to do on that front.
I have also heard, not surprisingly, from a great many of my constituents. I will just very briefly refer to one of many messages received by e-mail, letter and in person. One that came to me is a longer one than I have time to read, but it speaks about the budget, stating that “the Harper government” has confirmed “one of the largest budget surpluses in Canadian history, a whopping $13.2 billion”. It goes on to say:
 Even with this excess surplus, the Government is still cutting back on funding for programs relating to women, disabled persons, aboriginals, and other disadvantaged Canadians. 
 Furthermore, programs for helping disabled persons get jobs are not receiving any additional funding, no additional programs to encourage employers to hire disabled persons, no funding for youth programs, no additional programs to get disabled persons into the workforce, no legislation requiring employers to hire disabled persons. 
That is just one example of our most vulnerable citizens who feel very let down by this ultra-conservative budget. Not surprisingly, this is a memo that this young man in my riding entitles “Big Surplus and Betrayal from Conservative Government”.
My colleagues have had an opportunity to speak about the disappointments in the budget with respect to how it is going to increase child care wait lists. Despite all of the talk about addressing child care, it simply does not do so. The fact is that family allowances will effectively be diminished, because the budget is now going to tax the $100 a month allowance and will be eliminating the young child supplement.
 The fact is that pollution undoubtedly will go up because, just like the Liberals before them, these Conservatives have no plans to seriously tackle, with detailed plans, targets and timetables, greenhouse gas emissions and to get on with serious reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
As well, as I have already had an opportunity to point out, student debt will continue to grow because there is no serious commitment to tackling this problem.
I am very, very pleased with the fact that constituents in my community, given the opportunity earlier this week to meet with the NDP finance critic and the NDP critic for post-secondary education and literacy, responded by coming out to participate vigorously and enthusiastically in a discussion about not just the flaws, failures and omissions of the budget implementation bill that is before us, but also the very short-sighted and meanspirited cuts that have been announced subsequently, very much within the same genre, within the same spirit, or lack of spirit, for how to improve the lives of Canadians.
Among those who gathered in that meeting in my riding on Monday night were those who were speaking up for women who are desperate about the threat of cuts to transition houses, which help protect them from the abusive relationships from which they are escaping, and desperate about the threat of cuts to women's programs that are helping women to rebuild their lives.
Others who participated came because they are very concerned about the lack of new housing initiatives in this budget and the continuing failure, right up to as recently as yesterday, to confirm in any kind of detail the continuation of SCPI funds and the commitment to new funds to basically rebuild what was once the best national housing program in the world, which was simply killed by the previous prime minister when he was serving as finance minister. The result, of course, was predictable: incredible numbers of homeless people.
At that meeting on Monday night in my riding, we heard from people who are very concerned about the cuts to the arts and about an attempt to somehow define as illicit lobbying the attempts of those who would champion the arts and try to get the government to understand that this is really about the heart and soul of the nation. It is really about the ability of Canadians to come together around who we are and who we want to be in today's world.
Others were there to speak with real concern about the unbelievable decision, announced since the broader budget framework, of killing the international youth internship program. It is absolutely unbelievable.
 In this globalized world in which we live, at a time when our young people are anxious, eager and highly motivated to get out and really contribute their time and energies, and their hopes and dreams and aspirations, to building a better world, in one of the very best programs available to give them overseas experience and help open the doors of opportunity to valuable employment, the doors have just been slammed shut. This has to be one of the most cost effective programs from the point of view of the opportunities given to young people on their way to building careers in international service. This cut also is a real blow to the NGOs that depend upon the very significant contributions and skills of our young people in their hard-pressed, seriously underfunded agencies.
The list goes on and on in regard to the tremendous sense of loss felt across the country.
 There is also the community access program, which has been very important, in this knowledge-based economy, in putting people on track to be able to use the Internet for modern communications.
 There is the death blow to various volunteer initiatives and organizations.
I am sorry there is not more time, but I have to say that at the end of the day this is a budget that is a series of misplaced priorities and missed opportunities. For that reason, I too will be voting against this budget implementation bill.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I did not want to interrupt the member during her oratory but the hon. member will recall that at the beginning of her speech she made reference to another member by his name.
 You have 25 years' experience as a legislator and you do care about decorum.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fredericton.
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague and thank her for her intervention. I could not agree with all of it, but I agreed with much of it.
 I would like her to comment on what this reveals about the ideology behind the government, which really does not believe that the government has any place in financing criticism, that it does not have any place in financing the court challenges program, or in giving money to artistic organizations to do advocacy or to women's groups to do advocacy, to do pure advocacy. Service is important, but so is it necessary for governments that are sometimes isolated, sometimes living in rarefied atmospheres, to hear from people on the ground about what is important to them. I would like to hear her comment on what this says about the government and its ideology.
[Interjection]
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address this question. Let me apologize for referring to a member by name. I actually cannot even recall to whom I referred to by name. I apologize, and I am going to have to figure that out later, because I do know better. I am not permitted to do that and I did not intend to do that.
I welcome the question from the member for  Fredericton. By chance, the very next item I was going to speak about if I had not run out of time was the court challenges program, which serves as a screaming example of the hypocrisy of this government. I have to say that for a government whose members in opposition constantly talked about being the real grassroots democratic voice of Canadians, it is stunning to watch the many different ways in which they are trying to quash any meaningful advocacy and any meaningful discussion.
It is doubly hypocritical because, with great enthusiasm, the government has taken up the notion that we should really push our overseas development assistance obligations aside, or at least cut down on the extent to which that should be a really high priority, and instead commit to “democracy building” in failing and fragile states.
I absolutely think we should be committed to democracy building in failing and fragile states, but there is an expression, “Physician, heal thyself”, and maybe we could tweak that a little and say, “Politician, would-be democrat, heal thyself”. As for us going around the world on this, I worry about where this government really wants to take us in this democracy building exercise, because that can go as far as talking about regime change that causes chaos in the world.
Even acknowledging that an element of our overseas development commitment should involve contributing to the kind of capacity building and to the political sensitization of people who need and want to build a stronger foundation for democracy, it is unbelievable to me that this government is busy quashing dissent and cutting off opportunities for democratic expression everywhere we turn.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I have been puzzled by the NDP lately and maybe a lot of other people have as well.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Lately?
John McKay:  Yes, well, I guess it should not be unique, but I guess it is. Could the member tell me what the rationale was for the NDP to vote against the motion which questions the “value or wisdom of...[the] announced expenditure cuts which unfairly disadvantage the most vulnerable groups in Canadian society”?
 I do not understand. I thought that regardless of pretty well anything, this is what the NDP stood for: the vulnerable groups in Canadian society. Why would the NDP vote against that motion?
[Interjection]
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to get into a full-blown discussion. I will only say to my hon. colleague opposite, with all due respect, that when the Liberals are in opposition, we often hear from the Liberal benches a great deal of championing of the most vulnerable.
 But when the Liberals were in government, let the truth be known, after the deficit had been eliminated and after we were on our way to the third straight surplus budget, that Liberal government, instead of rebuilding the programs it had devastated, gave away $100 billion in tax cuts to those who least needed them, not the vulnerable.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, It is an honour to stand in the House and speak to this important issue. One could suggest that there is no more important issue that a government brings to the House than the budget. 
When I talk to constituents about the proposals that have been put forward by the government they see this budget as an opportunity missed. Quite frankly, it is an opportunity missed because when we look at the fiscal accounting presently, we see that most recently there was a surplus of $13 billion of Canadians' money that we all contributed to in the general pot.
When the government was in opposition it was very clear on its concern, which we agreed with, that before the money that is in the surplus side of the equation goes to deal with the accumulated debt, we should have a debate and Canadians should have an opportunity to suggest where those moneys would go.
We saw most recently that the government, instead of taking its own advice when it was in opposition, and instead of having a debate and talking about where the $13 billion of surplus should go, it decided, with the stroke of a pen, to make the decision for Canadians on where the money should go.
Strangely enough, the government also decided to cut a billion dollars worth of programs, programs that affect everyday people. For example, the billion dollars in cuts affected people who are working in communities, be it here in Ottawa or across the country, who volunteer their time and sweat to help out local museums. This is one of the strangest cuts I have seen in a long time.
The government cut summer employment programs. The rationale was that these were subsidies for the private sector. I am not sure if it looked at the list that most of us look at each year to look at the summer employment opportunities, but I know in my riding none of them were subsidies to private sector ventures. In fact, all of them were helping out community based, not for profit enterprises.
 For example, the Vietnamese Community Association cobbled together moneys for a summer employment program and, with the help of a meagre amount of money from the federal government, it put together a summer work employment program that gave an opportunity for youth to help it with the work that it does, helping people every day.
These kinds of opportunities for students in summer employment programs not only help these community based groups, but they also give opportunities for youth to be apprentices in certain areas, to gain very valuable experience in administration and be able to contribute to their community.
At the same time as the government had the $13 billion surplus, other cuts had to do with people who are working in areas to help people who are most disadvantaged and people who are working in the area of literacy. We have heard a lot about that. Giving people an opportunity to climb out of the darkness of illiteracy is something I believe is not only something government should do, it is something the government must do.
To see people who recently were in the news who were well into their eighties speaking publicly about coming out of the darkness of illiteracy and being able to finally contribute and be a full-fledged citizen is something that not only tugs one's heart strings but, more important, it allows us to understand the importance of these programs.
We had the government with this proposition in opposition, which said that when we have a surplus of Canadians' money, not the Liberal Party's money, not the Conservative Party's money, not the Bloc's money and not the NDP's money, we should be able to debate this. The Conservatives were very vigorous in opposition on this and we agreed with that.
One of the reasons we support and we propose to have someone oversee the budget spending, which we see in Bill C-2, is for this very reason. We do not just have the money holus-bolus written off because the Liberal Party, or the Conservative Party in this case, decides it should go wherever it likes. It should be opened up and there should be evaluation. We are hoping to see that when Bill C-2 comes into effect. 
It did not happen with the Conservatives because it was just $13 billion and away it went with no debate. They went against what they said in opposition.
We need to look at how the process works. The billion dollar cuts, to which I referred, and the $13 billion surplus were outside of the budgetary framework and did not allow us as parliamentarians to debate it. We are bringing it up with regard to the billion dollars and will have motions brought to the House.
 One with which I am sure the government will have a problem is the rebate to tourists. It obviously did not do its homework on that. It suggested only 3% of tourists take advantage of it but the government forgot that when people are in countries of origin that is when they take advantage of the GST rebate. Obviously it forgot to ask people how the program works and did not get the right statistics on it. We will probably see the government flip-flop on that. With that program the government showed the haste with which it made the cuts and it did not build it into the budget. It was in-between the budget of last year and the budget that will be coming up in the spring.
What is happening here is that the government is changing the mechanisms of how we debate as parliamentarians with regard to how citizens' money should be spent or, in this case, how their money is taken away. That is of concern because every citizen expects us to represent them and they expect that we will follow the rules and procedures of the House. To have a billion dollars worth of cuts without allowing us to have a debate on it is very problematic. Proposed cuts should come before the House for debate to ensure that everyone is fully aware of how it will affect our communities and the bottom line of the government.
This process and procedure of fiscal management should be done within the budgetary process and not the surprises that we have seen from the government, both on the surplus and the billion dollar cuts.
The final thing I will say about the billion dollar cuts is that they were clearly ideological cuts. We know the previous government booked more than the government cut when the previous prime minister came into power. In fact, he was going to cut five times as much. We know that was booked and that the government had to exact those savings. We see that now with the $2.5 billion it will try to get out of procurement.
I will take a minute to focus on procurement. The previous government went to Chicago and hired a consulting group. It was supposed to cost $1.5 million for the Chicago consulting group, A.T. Kearney, to come up with a plan on how the government could save money through reverse bid auctioning, which has been thrown out at this point. However, the price of the contract escalated all the way to $24 million.
My constituents became aware of this contract and when I became aware of it I mentioned it in the House. We had a contract, to be clear, that started off at $1.5 million and ballooned to $24 million. The icing on the cake was that the information the government got from A.T. Kearney was useless. That was what everyone in this town told the government before, that it was on the wrong track. We had to get the attention of the government to tell the government it was on the wrong track. Finally, it canned the project after we had sent $24 million to the consulting company out of Chicago. In my opinion, that is fiscal mismanagement. We thought we were done with that kind of mismanagement with the previous government.
I could go on about all the other programs that were affected and the missed opportunities here for young people, for post-secondary education, the no help for seniors and the child care plan that is a child care scam, but I will save that for another day. For reasons aforementioned, I cannot support the budget.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the visitor GST rebate fund that was cancelled by the government, thus affecting our tourists, especially in regions of our country such as Atlantic Canada.
However, the one thing the government did not tell us is that approximately 100 jobs will be lost at the taxation office in Summerside because of it. It is funny how the government never mentioned that when it talked about it.
In Atlantic Canada we like the idea of having full time employment. What would the hon. member tell the employees who are about to lose their jobs if this thing continues?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar:  Mr. Speaker, what I would tell the member is to support our party and to hold the government to account to reverse this decision, so that this does not happen and they will not lose their job. They then can continue to do the good work that they do on behalf of all Canadians.
As I said in my speech, the government did not do its homework on this particular cut. We will likely see it reversed. We will put pressure on the government to reverse this decision so they can keep doing the good work they have been doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
When we return to the study of Bill C-28 there will be three and a half minutes left in questions and comments for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Private Members' Business
Autism Spectrum DisorderAndy Scott:  moved:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create a national strategy for autism spectrum disorder that would include: (a) the establishment, in cooperation with provincial governments, of national standards for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder and the delivery of related services; (b) the study, in cooperation with provincial governments, of the funding arrangements for the care of those with autism spectrum disorder, including the possibility of transferring federal funds to assist provincial governments to provide no-cost treatment, education, professional training and other required supports for Canadians with autism spectrum disorder without unreasonable wait times; (c) the creation of a national surveillance program for autism spectrum disorder to be managed by the Public Health Agency of Canada; and (d) the provision of funding for health research into treatments for autism spectrum disorder. 
Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the large number of people who have aided in my understanding of this issue. They are parents, community activists and autism support workers. They are Canadians concerned about something that is unfinished business for Canada. 
This is a moment when the national government can step up, accept responsibility within the context of its own authorities in this Confederation, and show leadership on this issue. This is a very rich country and, as such, we can no longer afford to look the other way in terms of this rather outrageous limitation of what is available through the public health insurance program in Canada.
 I understand there are jurisdictional limitations to which we have to attend, but within that there is an opportunity to show leadership on this file, to work with provinces, to encourage them and incent them to deal with those areas, such as research and evidence-based public policy and standards.
The motion appeals to the government to show that leadership and to Parliament to ask the Government of Canada to do that. The rationale for this is relatively simple and stunningly inconsistent with my view of my country. 
The reality is when parents are told their child, at 18 months old, has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, depending upon how profound that condition might be, the effect on the child for the rest of his or her life could be incredibly limiting. Then they are told that there are treatments, therapies and things that can be done, but they are expensive. They may cost them their house. It means that somebody probably has to stay at home, which may cost a parent a job.
This is unacceptable in a country that prides itself on its public health care system. We have to move on this, and the Government of Canada can show leadership on this issue. 
I am former assistant deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs with the province of New Brunswick. I understand the jurisdictional issues, but we cannot let those jurisdictional issues get in the way of doing what we know to be the right thing as a national government for Canadian citizens.
I became most aware of this as the member of Parliament for Fredericton. I have a military base at CFB Gagetown. When members of the forces were transferred to New Brunswick, if they happened to have children who were diagnosed with autism, they would call me to say that they needed to get back to Edmonton or some other place in the country. As a parliamentarian, as somebody who feels an obligation to those military personnel who serve our country, I was concerned. However, I was also concerned as a New Brunswicker. What does that say about everybody else who lives in New Brunswick, who would wish to have those services that are better provided in other places in the country?
The other thing that has been revealed to me is all the treatments and therapies available. It is a spectrum disorder so I do not think we can get caught in a narrow debate about this one or that one. The reality is there are things out there at which we need to look. There are things available today that work and they need to be supported by the government so they can be used by parents and families.
I like to see this as a rights issue, something that we do because it is the right thing to do. However, if I cannot convince everybody to do it for that reason, just think about the long term costs of not doing intervention early and now. Think about what that means in terms of the life of that individual and the role the state will have to play. If it is not enough to simply speak to the rightness of this issue, then we should realize that the state will carry a tremendous cost if we do not do the right thing early.
 In putting forward a motion to Parliament to appeal to the government, the process I envision would be the national government would recognize that medicare formularies are the jurisdiction of provincial governments. The national government could work with provincial governments, on behalf of Canadian citizens, to advance this issue, with the ultimate objective being that the treatment and care of Canadians with autism would be covered under medicare. 
We cannot do that from here and we accept that. However, we can show leadership, offer incentives, do the research and establish surveillance so we can do good evidence-based public policy. Those are all things that are clearly under the purview of the national government. Until we do those things, we really do not have any right to expect the provinces to do the right thing. When we do those things, then we will have a stronger moral position on the other issues.
Again, I want to ensure that it is understood. I know this will be a difficult issue for the government to deal with because of the jurisdictional issue. That is an understood aspect of this debate. I do not think for a second that should allow the national government not to do the things within its purview. It will make it more difficult for the provinces to say no. More optimistically, it think it will encourage the provinces to do the right thing as well.
I would like to thank a number of people. The seconder for this motion, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has long been a champion on this issue. In fact, when my bill was drawn in the process earlier than his, he offered me the opportunity to put this forward so it would be a votable motion, and I appreciate that.
I appreciate the many meetings I have had with representatives of the government. I believe the government genuinely would like to find a way to get this done. For those who watch this place, sometimes not operating at its finest, maybe we can come to a conclusion that would demonstrate just how well this place can work when something calls out to be fixed.
I was asked to read a letter by a constituent in my riding, who is in the armed forces. His name is Brian Rimpilainen. He is from Fredericton. He and his wife Tracy have two kids, a four year old and an eight year old, who has been diagnosed with autism. This was specifically written by him. He stated:
 The birth of a child is both joyous and trying at times, but at the age of 3 yrs came the crushing blow of an autism diagnosis for our oldest boy. Overwhelming and frightening was the situation we were thrust into. With reason comes questions— What to do?—What information can we find to educate?—What treatments?— WHAT HELP? 
 Well, there is ABA (Applied Behavioural Analysis). At our own expense, we sought the guidance of Dr. Paul McDonnell and a therapist. 40 hrs/ week is the recommended therapy which is not always possible for some families. We learned the basics of ABA—we did the best that we could. Later, some assistance came—but too late for our son—he was already entering kindergarten. Tracy was fortunate to have the opportunity to be certified as an ASW (Autism Support Worker) at the University of New Brunswick's College of Extended Learning. 
 We know that we were blessed to have been given an autistic child—we celebrate the joys of both our children's successes and embrace the hardships/headaches of autism. But what now?— What more can be done?—What will happen when Tracy and I are gone? Will my son be taken care of in his adult years? 
 I see the heartache of parents who relocate to find services for their autistic children. Shall we all move to Alberta where services are enviable? As a member of the Canadian Forces I have contemplated the possibility of a posting. What services will be available? How will the move disturb our children's balanced life? 
 I see that there is research and training that could be done. The school-aged autistics need the help of trained Teacher's Assistants. “Inclusion” is not the answer for all autistics, some require one-on-one instruction, some flourish with the social interaction of peer mentoring. I question why all autistics across Canada can't get the same level of services within reasonable wait times. Stress and hardship in the autistic family leads to a higher than normal divorce rate: the mother becoming the primary caregiver. 
 With such a high prevalence rate we must act now. Does it not make sense to invest in trying to facilitate the ability of autistics to achieve their potential as productive citizens? The alternative is an immense cost to society in long-term care. AUTISM does not discriminate, it does not wait, it does not stop at age 6. As a father/ parent, all I can hope is the recognition, dignity, and security for our children as citizens of Canada. 
For Brian and Tracy, their story tells the story. I do not know how we can turn our backs on the thousands of Canadians who can tell that story.
As a Parliament, we need to recognize our responsibilities. The Government of Canada needs to show leadership in its dealings with the provinces. It should be respectful. It should not pretend or grandstand. I am not grandstanding. This is something that needs to happen. In this place we have the opportunity to do that. We have the opportunity to show the leadership, to do the research, to make money available, to do the surveillance and to do good evidence-based public policy to ensure that parents know what treatments are working, where they are, who does them and so on. That is critically important.
Also, I thank a Grade 12 political science classroom in Fredericton. Last year the classroom, which graduated in June, took on the project. The class this year has picked it up. The students are writing to members of Parliament. I am sure all members have received letters. These kids have brought in parents and professionals. They had somebody in who drafts legislation for the Province of New Brunswick. They have committed themselves to this. Their teacher is an amazing teacher, by my thinking, and these kids are absolutely committed to this. In fact, I suspect right now there is a full class taking a look at this.
It really speaks to making this place work for Canadians. They are watching. They would like to see this happen. They have put a lot of time in it. They understand the science. They understand the implications for parents and their families.
At the end of the day, I do not think there is anything else to say. In a country with this kind of wealth, and Canada is a wealthy country, and in a country that takes such pride in our public health insurance program, as Canadians, regardless of jurisdiction, we need to step up and say this is wrong and it needs to end. People who need this service have a right to expect their government to pay for it.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank the hon. member for  Fredericton enough for his dedication and work for those thousands of families with children who have autism.
Some people would be concerned about the fiscal costs of this initial treatment and everything else. However, research has shown that, in the long run, federal, provincial and territorial governments would save money. Instead of being expenditures, these are investments in our children.
 I know every one of us in our ridings have families with children with autism. This is something that transcends all of us across the country. The member knows that in one out of every 166 births in our country a child is diagnosed with some form of autism, and it is increasing. We need to find out what causes autism, what we can do to prevent it from happening, if that is possible. We especially need to provide the care and the treatment they require.
On the fiscal argument, I would like the member to have a couple of more moments to indicate that this is really not an expenditure of dollars. It is an investment in some of the most beautiful children in the world.
[Interjection]
Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I understand that when we ask a question, we are generally supposed to know what the answer is so we are not surprised, but it is not necessarily the case that when we ask the question, we have to give the answer as well. However, I take the member's point.
 I frankly prefer to feel that as a nation we would do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, but if that is not enough, the reality is that this will save the provinces that are engaged in it and the nation enormous amounts of money. The upfront costs associated with intervention are so much less than the lifetime costs of not intervening. It is not really even arguable. To answer the question specifically, that would be the answer. 
One of the things we really do have to recognize is that the federal government must be compelled to show leadership on this to pull all the provinces together. In the Maritimes, if New Brunswick stepped up and really did this better than everybody by a long shot, which it should and I wish it would, but if it did, there would be people who would relocate to my province specifically to have access to this service. 
That is one of the reasons I am fearful that provinces would be a little reluctant to step up and do the right thing. That is why it is important for the national government to bring all the provinces together, so that all of the provinces can work together and move together to remedy this outstanding grievance.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. I know children who have autism and I know how hard it can be for their parents.
My question for the member is this: does he have any support for his motion? Can he tell us if the Autism Society Canada, for instance, has written to him to indicate its support for the motion?
[Interjection]
Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I have had these discussions with people from a variety of organizations and have a great deal of support. It is not unanimous and it is important that we recognize that because I do not think we can allow ourselves to fall into the trap, to wait for everybody to agree on everything before we do anything. We cannot. There are too many people. 
It has to happen right now and we will deal with those issues that are out there, and there are because I am getting calls from people who are questioning elements of this as well, and that happens. However, the feedback is overwhelming, particularly from parents, people who are affected and who know that time is running out soon.
We are talking about somebody who had a child nine months ago. We cannot imagine the feeling if we knew that there was something available, we knew it would give our child a better life, and we could not afford it. It just does not seem Canadian to me.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member for bringing this forward. My wife is a teacher. She actually teaches junior kindergarten. She has seen the explosion of autism in the school at which she teaches. Identifying children early seems to be cutting edge, but we need more support. Will the hon. member comment on that, the funding for it and where it would come from?
[Interjection]
Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the earlier this intervention can take place, the better the outcomes and the better the likelihood of those outcomes. In some provinces, there is funding for that. It is a mishmash across the country. Credit goes to those who do it. I think we need to do more in many jurisdictions.
That is why it is appropriate for the national government to be engaged in this. It can help. I do not mean help in a negative sort of way, but just in a leadership way to help bring all the provinces together, to ensure that next time the ministers of health in Canada meet together, that this is on the agenda. 
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honoured colleague, the member for Fredericton, for his work on the issue of autism. He noted that for members from every party represented here in Parliament this is a very important issue that we are discussing today.
I am also here today to speak on behalf of the children with autism and their families that I have met in my riding of Langley, British Columbia. It is my privilege to represent them in the House of Commons. I want to thank them for sharing their stories with me and opening their homes.
Autism is a complex, lifelong condition and there are many unknowns. We recognize that more and more children are being diagnosed with autistic disorders. All members of the House are sympathetic to the motion, as are all the parties.
In the last six years the number of children reported with autism spectrum disorders, ASD, has grown by more than 150%. It is estimated that one out of every 165 children are now affected, but the numbers are growing. 
I want to tell the House about Maisie Kilgour, Xander Jones, Reid Black, Zoe Schmidt, Casey Walton and Miki. Their parents invited me into their homes, so I could witness their lives and listen to their stories. These parents and parents like them work tirelessly to make their daily choices and challenges understood, to make the fear of their children's future understood, and to ask for some help with their heavy burden.
Walking down that difficult road are the endless burning lights of hope, courage and strength. They have hope that their children's stories can be heard by those of us that can make the change happen and courage to face each day with the same struggle.
Children such as Maisie, Xander, Miki, Reid, Casey and Zoe are funny, warm and intelligent. They are worth our recognition, time and commitment. I wish to share with members the individual stories of two of these children.
Maisie is a sunny, energetic, five-year old girl with pigtails who works with her therapist in a room full of toys. She performs the task asked of her in between giggles and rewards, and praise from her therapist. At three years of age, Maisie had echolalia. It is a problem of repeating words with no meaning, unable to ask for help. She spent much of her time in tantrums or trying to escape out of her house unaware of danger.
Today, with a marked decrease in tantrums and escapes, Maisie's family faces these challenges with a child who can now speak to them and her words have meaning. She is a child who has now become aware of the world around her. She is building on her successes every day on her way toward a tomorrow filled with a great potential.
Reid was diagnosed with autism just before he turned two. He did not make eye contact. He would not respond to his name. He would sit flipping books all day. Two years have gone by and Reid, now four, makes eye contact, responds to his name, and is able to communicate his needs, his likes and dislikes, his love for preschool, playing at the park, and enjoying the people in his life. Through intensive therapy, Reid has made tremendous gains and is a happy, loving little boy.
From these two stories of children in my riding, we know that ASD affects people in different ways. It can cause serious developmental disabilities in affected individuals and can affect all aspects of development. Severe symptoms, such as compulsive behaviours and speech disorders, can lead to isolation from friends, family and the community.
Canadian families of individuals diagnosed with ASD may face serious challenges, such as their child's development, behavioural issues, getting a clear diagnosis, access to professional assistance, and the high costs of therapy and other services.
The new Conservative government is committed to helping individuals with ASD and their families. In budget 2006 this new government included an increase in the maximum annual child disability benefit to $2,300 from $2,044, effective July 2006. It is available to families of children with autism. 
This government wants to help families dealing with ASD and support to the tax system is one avenue of federal action.
There are government agencies working on its behalf on this issue. For example, the Public Health Agency of Canada is funding two autism-related projects through its Centres of Excellence for Children's Well-Being. Both projects are working to generate better information for frontline providers and their families.
The Canadian Health Network, a key information service of the agency, works in collaboration with expert organizations to provide consumer focused, on-line resources on such issues as autism. 
Some communities have used the funding through the community action program for children to focus on the needs of children with autism and again, their families. The government also funds community-based initiatives for children including children who have ASD and funds organizations working in the area of autism.
Another way this government is showing support for families is by committing resources to research support. We recognize that part of the challenge for families, caregivers, health and social service professionals and government is how much is unknown regarding ASD. We recognize that research is critical to unraveling the mysteries around autism.
This government recognizes that there is no consensus on adequate and appropriate treatment, the cause of ASD or why the reported incidence is on the rise. We support research on autism in Canada through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. In 2005-06 the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding approximately $3.5 million in autism-related projects with total funding since 2000 of close to $15 million.
I would like to share a few of the projects being funded by CIHR. Dr. Jeanette Holden of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario is examining the causes, origins and effects of ASD, and the effects of the treatment.
Dr. Hélène Ouellette-Kuntz, also at Queen's University, is leading a team which has created a national database for the study of autism in Canada. This database is being used to monitor the occurrence of autism in children under the age of 15 in regions across Canada.
Finally, Dr. Edward Ruthazer of the Montreal Neurological Institute is conducting research studying brain circuitry during the development years to help increase our understanding on how the brain works with the emphasis on autism.
The government is pleased that the issue of autism spectrum disorder has been referred to the standing Senate committee and looks forward to its advice on the federal role in this area, and how individuals with autism and their families can best be supported.
In conclusion, provinces and territories have the jurisdiction over the kinds of health and social services required to address autism.
I think and consider Maisie, Xander, Miki, Reid, Zoe, and Casey, and their families and their friends, this generation's pioneers to help us and the reason that the future for people with autism must be brighter. We need to work together and find solutions.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on Motion M-172. People are always somewhat reluctant to talk about pervasive developmental disorder. The same is true when it comes to talking about cancer: no one can remain indifferent.
The term “pervasive developmental disorder” can at first seem very vague. It is used to describe specific problems that affect the overall development of the child, particularly, cognitive, social, emotional, intellectual, sensory and language problems. Autism is the most well known.
In Quebec, 46,500 people have autism or a pervasive developmental disorder. This affects four or five boys for every girl. Boys are more often affected by these disorders. It is also defined as a neurological disorder characterized by a disturbance in the global development of the individual in all areas of functioning.
The Fédération québécoise de l'autisme et des autres troubles envahissants du développement is the only provincial organization and the only organization to support those with autism in Quebec. However, 80 agencies in Quebec belong to the federation, which is, in turn, a member of the Autism Society Canada. The federation is a frequent partner with the Quebec department of health and social services.
However, the federation has not had much contact with the federal government to date. There was just one intervention within the framework of support for training. The federation believes that the federal government should not get involved in this debate because it finds it hard to believe that supplementary structures coming from Ottawa would have a real impact in the field. It also believes that the intervention strategies are much more likely to involve local players, community groups, CLSCs and schools and that the need is quite simple: money. We are still talking about the fiscal imbalance, unfortunately.
In Quebec, since 2002, we have had our own program. As usual, in Quebec, we are ahead of the game. We tend to come up with our own programs before many of the other provinces do because, yes, we pay more taxes, and, yes, we spend a lot more on our social programs—as some have pointed out—but, yes, we are taking care of the health of our citizens.
There are therefore services that were created for people with pervasive developmental disorder, for their family and loved ones. The organization of the services in Quebec's plan of action is based on social integration, social participation, responsibility of the parents in the development of their child and the interaction between people and their environment. The objectives are to implement an integrated services approach, to offer target recipients a wide range of the services they need in their community, to provide them with the tools to properly support the optimal development of their potential and their social integration process, to obtain adequate support for the families and loved ones and to foster cooperation between the various sectors of intervention, child card services, continuing education and various players in the community.
The priorities set out in this plan of action are: to provide services based on the needs of the person and their family, including: information, awareness, pervasive developmental disorder detection, diagnosis, patient navigators, access to services, comprehensive needs assessment, specialized adjustment and rehabilitation services, services for school-aged children, services for adults, residential support, accommodation and suitable support for families. As hon. members can see, every effort has been put into providing as much help as possible to people with autism.
We also seek to focus on partnerships with other public, semi-public and community service sectors. In Laval, we are ahead of the times. Mr. Germain Lafrenière has established Les Entreprises Qualité de Vie, which operates an organic farm, BioFerme Laval, and also Table champêtre BioFerme Laval. This is a social economy enterprise that promotes access to various trades for individuals with a pervasive development disorder, autism or an intellectual disability.
The social and occupational integration of the participants is supported by professionals who understand the needs of these individuals, who gain confidence and pride along with their practical training.
Each participant learns about various trades and activities including farming, arts and crafts, ceramics, cooking, small animal husbandry, sales, and of course the farm's restaurant. I would like to quote from an article written by a journalist who visited this organic farm. She went away feeling very satisfied with and even enchanted by the experience. She wrote: 
 One of about 500 Quebec organic farms that grow vegetables and raise animals, BioFerme Laval is worth the drive. The Sainte-Dorothée enterprise has a dual mission, one more vital than the other: not only does it offer an impressive array of fresh food at its restaurant, shop and farm gate, but it also provides autistic individuals with the opportunity to achieve their potential through their work. Travel to a farm that is unique in Canada. 
She adds:
 With each course, we marvel at the thought that almost everything on our plates (which were made, like all the dinnerware, in the ceramics workshop next to the house) comes from the garden and the animal pens, just over there, in back, and contains no preservatives and no traces of GMOs— 
This is very important because working is very difficult for individuals with a pervasive development disorder.
These people take great pride in becoming independent. About 12 people work on the farm at all times. They are divided among the various workshops: ceramics, woodworking, greenhouses, animals, fields, and organic products. These workshops are run by professionals.
The article goes on, and the author quotes the chef: 
 The therapeutic effect is undeniable...You should see them getting off the bus in the morning. They are happy to be working here, and we enjoy being with them. They have their routine, feel useful and are entitled to make mistakes. 
Of course, the Fédération québécoise de l’autisme et des autres troubles envahissants du développement is well acquainted with this farm. The federation is convinced that such projects can further the cause.
Clearly, Quebec has a plan. It knows what people with autism and their families need, and it has put in place services to meet those needs. What is missing is money.
We in the Bloc Québécois recognize the importance of fighting to find a treatment for autism and to provide patients and their families with the support they need to have appropriate quality of life. I agree with my colleague that this is important, but only Quebec and the provinces can determine what services are needed for people with autism and their families.
Government intervention should happen in collaboration with local partners, community education organizations, and other sectors under provincial jurisdiction. We are, however, opposed to the federal government developing a national autism strategy. It would be interfering yet again in an area under provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec already has its own policies. This would be a costly duplication of what is already in place. Instead, the federal government should transfer funds directly to Quebec and the provinces so they can use the money in their own programs.
Correcting the fiscal imbalance will give Quebec and the provinces the freedom to make their own choices and to implement effective programs for people with autism.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, sometimes we sit in the House of Commons and wonder if a day like this will ever arrive and today it has.
Before I begin I would like my hon. colleague from the Bloc to know that this is exactly what we are trying to do, to work with the provinces. It will be the provinces that deliver the treatment, and we know that, but what is required is some fiscal assistance from the federal government as well. That is part of the national autism debate. 
We hope the Bloc Québécois will support the motion of the hon. colleague from Fredericton so we can actually have this debate. The health minister or the Premier of Quebec could sit down with the Prime Minister and other premiers and territorial leaders and discuss how we deal with this very important subject. That is really what we are debating today. 
While I am here, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you what happened on my road to Damascus conversion on the concerns of autism which happened a few years ago. While I was walking outside on Parliament Hill, I saw a gentleman named Andrew Kavchak who had a sandwich board sign. The curious person that I am, I spoke to him, which led to a very serious friendship. He introduced me to a woman named Laurel Gibbons who is the mother of a child with autism. Through her initiative, she has worked very diligently with all groups of people with autism. It does not matter whether it is the national autism group, provincial groups or the FEAT group, Families for Early Autism Treatment, and individual members of Parliament and senators, she will talk to anyone about it. Her dedication to not only her child but to other families with children with autism is unbelievable. 
I know it is hard to believe but after that I met a certain gentleman from Ottawa who happens to be with us right now. I want to read his card. There are not many 12 year olds in the country who, because of a notice in a magazine in Ottawa, could be one of the top 50 people to watch out for in the future.
This young man is named Joshua Bortolotti. On his business card it says, “Autism Awareness Advocate and aspiring future Prime Minister of Canada”. By the way, he does not have autism but his little sister does. For Sophia Bortolotti, his sister, we should be able to tell young Joshua and his family and all the Joshuas of this world, the aspiring prime ministers, that this is the opportunity we get to tell this young 12 year old who is fighting for his sister and who I wish could have the opportunity to speak here in the House, what we will do today after this rather rational and very serious debate. Do we tell him that yes, maybe there will be the day that his sister and many other children like her across the country will have the opportunity to get the treatment that they require so they can live productive and normal lives in this country to the best of their ability? Or, do we tell them, because of crass politics and jurisdictional squabbles we are not able to do it?
 I know many colleagues and friends of mine in the Conservative Party know this issue is very serious. I know many members of the Bloc and the Liberal Party also know it. I also know that Senator Jim Munson of the other place is a strong advocate for early intervention and cooperation between the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions to get this done.
When we speak of young Joshua Bortolotti, in the riding of the hon. member for Fredericton  there is a school called the Leo Hayes High School, I believe, which has either a principal or a teacher named Greg Peters. I have received all kinds of tremendous letters from that school. This class of young activists, of all the causes that are out there, decided to take up the cause of autism. They have written to all of us, in both official languages, and they are probably watching the debate now, encouraging and watching all members of Parliament to see how we move this debate forward.
It is a tremendous day. It does not matter who moves the bill or what government does or whose name is attached to anything. This is the opportunity for members of Parliament to work together in a constructive manner to once and for all develop a strategy with the provinces, with various agencies and research firms and the providers of the care to actually say to those families with children with autism that here we go.
In my own riding, we have a military person who has a child who is a flight risk. Every single access to their house is locked. If that door opens just a crack, that little son of theirs will take off and run and run until physically he either drops or gets hit by something.
That is just one of the concerns about a child with autism. There are many of them who are voice challenged; they do not speak. Many of them react in ways that they do not fully comprehend or understand. The concerns for the families are not only the financial costs, but the emotional strain on families knowing that they give up their jobs, they sell their house, and they lose all possible equity. It takes money away from other children in the family. They themselves will pour all their resources into their child with autism.
Here, I believe, is where as Canadians we could something for those families. We all know, those of us who have been interacting with them and seeing them, that children with autism are some of the most beautiful children in the world. They are warm, they are generous and they are kind, but these people are just looking to us for indications of leadership, indications that we can work together, indications that they will not lose everything in order to provide the treatment their children need. We have that opportunity. 
Recently I was in British Columbia with my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, and we did a press conference with folks with autism. I met a young mother, and by the way, her sister happens to be my next door neighbour, which is quite a coincidence. She has two children with autism, not one but two, and the financial concerns are completely unbelievable. It is also the emotional strain on the families as well.
 The hon. member for Fredericton is absolutely correct. We have the opportunity now to say to those thousands of families in this country, crossing all political lines, that we are going to step up to the plate. We are no longer going to wait for every single person in the country to agree to every single dot of the i's and crossing of the t's.
 We have cross-political support on both sides of this chamber. We have tremendous numbers of people across the country who are saying that now it is time for government to move on this. In the era of tremendous fiscal surpluses, we are not asking the federal government to do this on its own. We would not do that because we understand the provincial jurisdictions. 
The provinces themselves have challenges on this. I really compliment the province of Alberta because its treatment goes to age 18, while in my own province of Nova Scotia it is a sort of trial program. It is spotty. The province does not have anything constructive. In Ontario, treatment is until age 6, so what we are saying to families is that if they want treatment, maybe they should move to Alberta, but that puts tremendous strain on the Alberta economy.
What we are saying to the national government, working with provinces and territories, is to let us have the meetings that we need to take place to set the ball rolling. If we do that, then we are telling Laurel Gibbons, a mother with a child with autism, and we are telling young Joshua, who is arguing and fighting in such a great way for his little sister, Sophie, that yes, their advocacy has worked, and yes, their tireless efforts on behalf of her daughter and his sister have been noticed and mentioned. We would also be saying it to the school in Fredericton that has done tremendous work in taking on this issue.
It is a proud day as a member of Parliament, not just as a member of the NDP, but as a member of Parliament, with all my colleagues in the House, to stand here and give my thanks to the hon. member, to thank the Chair and to thank each and every one in this House for making this a reality and a possible ending to the concerns of families and children with autism.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just mentioned, there is tremendous support for the creation of a national autism strategy, not only from members of the House but from many Canadians and families who have been affected by autism. We must all join together in commending the students from Fredericton who actually did a tremendous amount of work in showing that they are activists for a very important cause.
We also must commend the dedication of many other colleagues in the House, including the member for Fredericton, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, as well as Senator Trenholme Counsell. We must commend them for their hard work and their commitment to ensuring that we in this country develop a national strategy to address the issue of autism.
We must look at it and make sure that the national strategy is going to ensure that children in this country who are affected by autism receive the type of treatment and therapy they need to ensure they have the highest quality of life possible, because many of us know that autism spectrum disorder is a very complex developmental disability, one that affects brain function. 
People with autism typically have an inability to talk and understand or communicate with others. They have an inability to form social relationships, to make eye contact, perhaps to recognize dangerous situations, as my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, an inability to adapt to changes in the environment or their routine, and perhaps an inability to learn skills and language naturally, as typically developing children do.
Autism spectrum disorder is currently reaching epidemic levels. If we look 10 years back, statistics show that almost one in every 10,000 children was diagnosed with autism. However, in 2006 the statistics are quite shocking. One in 166 children is diagnosed with autism.
As the member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of parents and families with autistic children who live in my constituency. Hearing their stories is absolutely heart-wrenching. As was described earlier, many families who have autistic children, not only in my riding but across the country in many of the other provinces and territories, are actually having to mortgage their homes, sell their homes or give up their jobs to ensure that their children get the very best in treatment. Treatment costs have been estimated at almost $70,000 per year.
 We know there is effective treatment. I think that those of us in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the children who need that treatment actually get it. We must make these investments in their early childhood learning. We must ensure that they have the foundation to enable them to go out there and succeed.
Innovative research has shown us some effective treatment, such as intensive behavioural intervention, and there is also applied behaviour analysis, which actually breaks down into much more manageable steps many of the tasks these children face. Each newly achieved or mastered task then serves as a building block for these children to build on for future skills. These children are actually assisted or prompted, as some suggest, through this extremely positive therapeutic process. 
Right now in most provinces, intensive behavioural intervention and applied behaviour analysis are actually funded for preschool children. However, treatment depends on where one lives in the country. In some provinces, the treatment is funded until the age of six. As was mentioned earlier, in Alberta it is funded until the age of 18.
 We must make sure that regardless of where one lives in Canada, whether it is on the west coast, the east coast or in the Northwest Territories, all children who are affected by autism actually have the opportunity to receive the treatment they need throughout their lives until the age of 18.
I am sure this national strategy is going to ensure that we have the proper investment to do further research into whether there are other treatment options available and into how this type of condition can be prevented. We must invest in a comprehensive strategy to address this very complex disorder.
As I have mentioned, we know the cost is upwards of $70,000 per year, but we have to ensure we give the opportunity to these families so their children can obtain treatment and provide them with the quality of life they need. These families should be able to do this without having to mortgage their homes, or sell their cars, or go through those financial hardships. Many families that have been affected by autism simply cannot afford this treatment.
In April 2005 Justice Frances Kiteley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the absence of treatment for ABA meant that children with autism were excluded from the opportunity to access learning with the consequential deprivation of skills. The likelihood of this type of isolation from our society would result in the loss of the ability for these young children to exercise their rights and freedoms to which Canadians are entitled.
Over the past 30 years, thousands of research documents have been published and have been peer-reviewed. These studies show that if these children receive the treatment they so much deserve, they will have a chance for purposeful and productive lives.
 Many other constituents have come forward and have even sent out emails. I received another email just a few weeks back from a women in Manitoba. She talked about the fact that both of her sons were autistic. She described the hardship of having to sell her home to ensure that her children would get the type of care and treatment they needed. Today, her children are at the mercy of the school system because there is no legislation in Manitoba to ensure that these children receive the applied behaviour analysis treatment or the intensive behaviour intervention.
We all know that these children deserve better. They deserve the opportunity to go out there and learn. They deserve the opportunity to go out, become productive citizens and contribute to our social, economic and political fabric within our country.
As a health care provider, I know the types of treatments these children receive have a very positive effect, not only for the families but also for those vulnerable children.
All members and all parties of the House have the opportunity to really make a difference for these families and these children. We have an opportunity to support a national autism strategy, which would make a tremendous difference in the lives of thousands of Canadians.
On behalf of our party, as the critic for health, we wholeheartedly support a national autism strategy. We commend the member of Parliament for Fredericton who has brought it forward. As was said earlier, this is a non-partisan issue that impacts thousands of families across the country. We need to have a strategy that will ensure we can further study this disorder, that we can have other effective treatment options come forward and that ensure those who require the care receive it.
On behalf of many members in my caucus of the Liberal Party, we fully and wholeheartedly support a creation of a national autism strategy for those thousands of young Canadians who are affected with autism. I hope we will have unanimous support in the House of Commons to adopt a national strategy on autism.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Fredericton for bringing forward this motion which addresses this important issue.
For those members who might not be familiar with autism spectrum disorders, I would like to take a moment to describe the challenges, difficulties and the problems that individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their families face.
No one knows what causes spectrum disorders. Autism has been called by some experts arguably the most severe developmental disorder of childhood.
Autism spectrum disorders occur in all cultures and all social classes. They occur more often in boys than in girls. Furthermore, autism spectrum disorders occur often alongside other disorders, most frequently developmental disabilities.
It has been noted publicly that about three-quarters of autistic children have some degree of cognitive impairment. Between 60% and 80% of children with an autistic spectrum disorder function in the mild to severe range of mental retardation. What this means is that one person can have severe developmental disabilities and be mildly autistic, while another can be highly functioning intellectually but severely autistic. Of course, some will have severe difficulties both with respect to developmental difficulties and with respect to their autism.
How do autism spectrum disorders manifest themselves? Autism affects people in different ways, isolating its sufferers with compulsive behaviours and speech disorders that close people off from their family, friends, teachers, neighbours and society as a whole.
Autism affects all aspects of the disabled person's life and if untreated results in physical, emotional, social and intellectual isolation.
Families of children with autism spectrum disorders have reported improved self-functioning, self-sufficiency and quality of life for the children when they are provided applied behavioural analysis or intensive behavioural intervention services, particularly at an early age, starting at age two. It is a painstaking, expensive treatment that requires full time individual therapy for children. Success stories exist with this treatment.
In one study, with an average of 40 hours per week of one on one treatment for two or more years, almost one-half of children recovered to the point of being indistinguishable from their normally developing peers.
What is the cost of this behaviour therapy? The cost for a year of therapy ranges between $50,000 and $120,000, depending on the severity of a child's condition. Since these therapy services are provided in the home and do not constitute traditional health services, many parents face significant financial burdens.
There is no doubt that a situation for which the treatments most likely to be beneficial cost tens of thousands of dollars can be a profound challenge on top of the challenges that autism spectrum disorders may bring in the first place.
There is also no doubt that autism spectrum disorders have an enormous effect on the family. As the parents of individuals with autistic spectrum disorders have attested, the impact on families is often devastating, both financially and emotionally. Families raising children with autism spectrum disorders face particular hardships, including financial hardships, time poverty and social isolation.
Parents of children with disabilities report that caring for a child with a disability affects their availability to work, requiring them often to work fewer hours, forgo promotions and adjust their work schedules entirely. In particular, the majority of mothers experience a negative impact on their employment. In addition, most parents of pre-school children with disabilities need, but do not have, additional support to carry out basic family responsibilities. 
When we hear of the challenges facing families with a child who has been diagnosed as having an autism spectrum disorder, we can only be sympathetic. No one on either side of this House denies that families affected by autism face gaps in the services, especially the social services that can be used to address the needs of their children.
It is not surprising to me that people in the autism community, parents and supporters of many kinds, have been so active in seeking action on autism spectrum disorders.
We recognize that national action on autism spectrum disorders would require cooperation between levels of government. Health and social services are clearly under provincial jurisdiction. The finance minister announced in budget 2006 numerous measures that we are using to assist families with disabilities.
I believe that we are all sympathetic to the situation facing families with children who have been diagnosed as having an autism spectrum disorder. I would like to take this--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
When Motion No. 172 returns for debate, there will be six minutes left for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)